LocalWorkspaceBridge Self Test

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context by stating the test will not modify workspace files and is 'controlled' and 'local.' It also clarifies the scope of checks, which goes beyond the annotations, though it does not describe what output the diagnostic produces.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the diagnostic scope without wasted words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 description is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool, and the schema covers all parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the diagnostic returns or how an agent should interpret the result, which is a notable gap for a self-test 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already well documented in the schema. The main description does not add parameter-level detail, but that is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 specific verb ('Run'), a clear resource ('a controlled local diagnostic'), and enumerates the exact areas covered: workspace access, tool registration, skills, git, and bash policy. It also adds the key constraint 'without modifying workspace files,' which distinguishes this self-test from file-inspection siblings like inspect_workspace.

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 phrase 'controlled local diagnostic' implies this tool is for verifying bridge health, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as inspect_workspace or tree. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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