st.bridge.read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not disclose what happens with the optional history parameter, whether data can be stale, whether the bridge must be running, or what the response contains. This is a thin disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 one tight sentence with no filler and the core resource is front-loaded. It is concise, but brevity edges into under-specification becuase it costs key parameter and behavior information.

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?

There is no outut schema, no annotations, and the only paramter is undocumented. The ststement identifies what is read but not how the 'history' paramter affects behavior, what is returned, or whether any setup is required. For a tool with this little structure, the descrition should do more work.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or explain the single 'history' boolean parameter. An agent has no way to know whether 'history' controls returning historical snapshots, including prior results, or something else. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('latest browser runtime snapshot'), and a specific source ('ST MCP runtime bridge'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like st.resource.read and st.snapshot by describing the exact snapshot scope.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve a snapshot from the bridge, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over st.snapshot, st.resource.read, or other read-style tools, nor does it mention prerequisite conditions like bridge health.

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