LocalWorkspaceBridge Supertool

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by stating it cannot call tools disabled by the current mode, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. This justifies a score above the baseline.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded ('Stable wrapper'), and the constraint is placed at the end. It is concise and well-structured, though the phrase 'advanced ChatGPT connector setups' is slightly vague but not verbose enough to warrant a 3.

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?

For a wrapper tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics, the mode constraint, and directs to list_actions. It does not explain potential side effects beyond annotations, but annotations already cover destructive behavior. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add anything beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters; it simply echoes 'pass action plus args' without enriching the meaning.

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 it is a stable wrapper that passes action plus args to an already-registered LocalWorkspaceBridge tool, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself as a generic dispatcher, though it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It implies use for advanced ChatGPT connector setups and for invoking an already-registered tool without schema changes. It provides a constraint (cannot call disabled tools) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use it, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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