st.bridge.health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does clearly signal a read operation with no side effects. But it does not describe what the returned health data looks like, whether it attempts network connectivity, or what failure conditions look like; for a zero-parameter health check, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, precise sentence states the operation and target with no filler. Every word earns its place and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.

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?

This is a trivial zero-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description is nearly sufficient. It misses only an explicit statement of what the agent should expect in the response (e.g., status OK versus failure), but the health-endpoint wording strongly implies that context.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly requires no parameter explanation because there are none to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('the runtime bridge server plugin health endpoint'), clearly identifying what the tool does. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like st.bridge.read by focusing on the health endpoint, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 intended use is implied: it is the tool to call when checking the health state of the runtime bridge server plugin. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to diagnostic siblings like st.doctor or st.bridge.read.

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