Bridge status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the information surfaced (port, file path, schema provenance) and the word 'Check' implies a non-mutating read, but it never explicitly states that the call has no side effects, requires no authentication, or is safe to repeat.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler. The diagnostic scope comes first and the activation condition is front-loaded at the end, so the agent gets both the 'what' and the 'when' immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the returned fields (port, connection path, schema source). It is close to complete for a zero-param diagnostic, missing only a note on how it differs from bb_status/bb_setup.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing in the schema the description needs to explain or compensate for.

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 diagnostic verb ('Check whether') and enumerates the resources inspected: connection state, listen port, connection file path, and schema origin. The scope is clear enough to call correctly, though it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling bb_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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first when any bb_* tool reports "not connected".' That is a clear when-to-use condition. It does not, however, compare against bb_setup or bb_reconnect, which an agent might reasonably reach for in the same failure scenario.

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