BULC connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's additions (identity verification, snapshot comparison, live-vs-bundled state) describe what is inspected rather than behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or rate limits, so it sits at the adequate baseline for an annotated read-only 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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the enumerated checks, followed by the actionable call-first directive. The five-clause list is dense and the trailing Korean sentence duplicates the preceding English content, which is minor waste but no real bloat.

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 output schema, so the description helps by enumerating the states being reported (reachability, identity, tool count, snapshot match, live-vs-bundled). It does not describe the actual response shape or field names, which is the one remaining gap for a schema-less diagnostic tool.

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 clarify beyond confirming the call is argument-free.

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 ('Check') and lays out precisely what is verified: app running/reachable via the local bridge, identity of the responder, tool count, snapshot match, and live-vs-bundled tool list. No sibling tool performs this diagnostic, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Gives explicit invocation timing: 'Call this first, and again whenever an app tool fails.' This is clear routing guidance with a concrete trigger. It stops short of naming an alternative or a when-not condition, but no alternative exists among the siblings.

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