start_mock_bridge

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 key behavioral trait that the listener speaks the real wire protocol and that it fails if already running. It does not mention side effects or state changes, but for a mock start tool this is adequate 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 sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the failure condition is stated clearly, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the essential behavior and failure mode. It does not explain the response shape, but the schema mentions checking the response for the actual port, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the port parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The main description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and no additional guidance is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('start a fake After Effects bridge listener'), defines its purpose ('for testing bridge client code without real After Effects'), and distinguishes it from siblings by the word 'fake'. It is immediately obvious what this tool does and how it differs from the other mock-bridge tools.

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?

The description clearly frames when to use the tool (testing without real After Effects) and the failure condition ('fails if one is already running'), implying you should stop an existing bridge first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like stop_mock_bridge, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the right selection.

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