krl_bridge_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about what a 'status' result contains (connected/disconnected, bridge version, endpoint, latency) or whether an unreachable bridge raises an error or returns a negative status. It also doesn't disclose that this is a local-only network probe with no filesystem or workspace side effects, which would reassure an agent it is safe to call speculatively.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the endpoint pair being probed. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 inherently simple (zero input, no nested objects), and the description covers what is probed. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about the result shape and failure behavior, and it leaves both unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly conveys that the call is argument-free and is driven entirely by the local server/bridge relationship.

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?

States a specific verb ('Checks') and a precisely scoped resource: connectivity between this MCP server and the LiskinLabs KUKA KRL extension local bridge. An agent can distinguish it from the content-oriented siblings (lint, lookup, telemetry) without inspecting the schema. It loses a point only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the other diagnostics sibling, krl_workspace_diagnostics.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: nothing tells the agent to call this before/after other krl_* tools or when a bridge-related failure occurs. No alternatives or exclusions are named (e.g., what to do if the bridge is down). Adequate but relies on the agent inferring the trigger condition.

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