bridge_status

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. It implies a read-only diagnostic but never states that it has no side effects, what failure modes mean (bridge down vs plugin not connected), or whether it blocks/retries.

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 tight sentence with the primary subject front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it leaves room for a short follow-on clause about what the result indicates.

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 should describe what the status result looks like (e.g. connected/disconnected states, error meaning) but does not. For a diagnostic tool that other Studio tools likely depend on, this leaves a real gap.

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 of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or for the schema to hide.

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 specific verb ('Check') and two concrete resources ('HTTP bridge status', 'Studio plugin connection'), so an agent knows exactly what it inspects. It does not differentiate from siblings like studio_status or studio_launch, which sound adjacent and could plausibly overlap.

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 statement of when to call this versus studio_status or studio_launch, no prerequisites, and no troubleshooting context (e.g. 'call this first if other Studio tools fail'). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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