get_bridge_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it reads the actual loaded host rather than a cached/static source, and it explicitly does not evaluate runtime rig or license preconditions. That caveat is meaningful for an agent deciding whether to rely on the output.

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?

One compact sentence with two informative clauses and no filler. The informational caveat is placed after the main action, which is reasonable, though the leading phrase is less clear than it could be.

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 should convey what the returned capability/contract data looks like, but it does not. For a zero-parameter read tool whose entire value is the returned content, the definition leaves the agent unable to anticipate the result format or content scope.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names a read action and a source ('actual loaded host'), but 'contracts' is domain jargon that does not clearly map to bridge capabilities, and it draws no distinction from siblings such as get_rig_semantics or ping_cascadeur. The purpose is discernible but vague.

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 when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The clause about unevaluated preconditions is a caveat, not usage direction, so an agent still cannot tell when this tool is the right choice.

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