get_bridge_api

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It discloses the conditional output based on parameter presence, names example objects, and mentions the 'events' option. It does not describe response structure or permissions, but for a read-only documentation tool this is sufficient.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It states the subject, explains the two modes, and gives examples, earning its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the two invocation modes and hints at return values (overview, object, events). It is nearly complete; slightly more detail about the structure of the returned documentation could make it perfect.

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 input schema already lists valid values with 100% coverage. The description adds the critical semantic that omitting the parameter yields an overview, which is not encoded in the schema (since the parameter is optional). This extra context clarifies the parameter's behavioral effect beyond the schema.

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?

The description explicitly states that the tool provides documentation for the MAX Bridge API (window.WebApp) and clearly distinguishes its behavior based on the optional parameter: an overview without parameters, or a specific object/events with a parameter. This is specific and differentiates it from sibling documentation tools like list_endpoints or get_endpoint.

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 description gives clear usage context: use without parameters for an overview, with a parameter for a specific object (e.g., BackButton, HapticFeedback) or 'events' for event listings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the parameter-dependent guidance is practical and unambiguous.

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