secop_bridge_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does convey that this is a live status check ('estado en vivo') rather than a mutation, which is valuable. However it does not say whether it performs an outbound/network probe, whether it can be slow or fail, or what side effects (if any) a call has.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core object of the diagnosis is stated immediately. It is slightly jargon-dense ('puente bidireccional', 'proyecto SCRAPPING') but not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (0 params) and an output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. What is still missing is any notion of what the status result means or what a degraded bridge implies, but overall the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb ('Diagnostica') bound to a specific resource ('estado en vivo del puente bidireccional entre MCP-SECOP y el proyecto SCRAPPING'), so an agent can tell this is a health/diagnostics probe. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the listed siblings, though the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The diagnostic framing implies the usage context (checking connectivity between MCP-SECOP and the SCRAPPING project), but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or what alternative exists if a diagnostic fails. Usage must be inferred from the verb alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.