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 burden. It discloses the report's contents, which implies a non-mutating status read, but never explicitly confirms it is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, auth requirements, or whether it can fail when the bridge is disconnected. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no filler: the first lists what is reported, the second gives the invocation timing. The most important operational cue ('call this first') is placed at the end but is still prominent and unmissable.

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 correctly takes on the job of enumerating return contents (connection, version, project summary, fs permission), which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. It stops short of describing failure behavior when the bridge is down, a realistic scenario for a status 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 of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 ('Report') and enumerates the four things reported: MCP server connection, Blockbench version, project summary, and file-system permission. This is concrete and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling bb_bridge_status, which appears to cover overlapping ground, leaving an agent to guess which status tool to call.

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?

'Call this first in a session' gives an explicit when-to-use trigger, which is more than most definitions offer. It does not address when NOT to use it or name bb_bridge_status as an alternative, so the routing guidance is incomplete rather than absent.

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