probe_replay_bridge

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: the call is read-only and the bridge is optional (i.e., may not be present). It stops short of describing what happens on a missing bridge, whether errors or negative results are returned, or what the snapshot contains.

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, and the read-only qualifier leads. It is terse rather than padded, though brevity here edges into under-specification.

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 probe tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a positive versus negative probe looks like and how it feeds the replay workflow. Neither the return shape nor the connection to the surrounding replay tools is addressed.

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% for the single game_dir parameter, and the description says nothing about it. An agent must guess whether it is a path to the game install, when it can be omitted given the empty default, and whether omission triggers auto-detection.

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 gives a verb-resource pair ("Read-only check for ... the optional CSP Lua status bridge") and adds that it returns a snapshot, so the general intent is discernible. However, "CSP Lua status bridge" is unexplained jargon and "snapshot" is never defined, so an agent cannot confidently tell what it actually retrieves versus the sibling get_live_replay_status.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or ordering relative to prepare_replay_launch or get_live_replay_status, and no stated alternatives. The word "optional" hints the bridge may be absent but does not say what the agent should do in that case.

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