Bridging Bridge Wormhole Status

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Check the status'), but annotations set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which is contradictory. The description does not disclose behavioral traits that explain or align with these annotations, and the contradiction is misleading for the agent.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and includes context (SAP MCP class), usage flow, and audit trail instruction. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (coverage of return values), the description is complete: it explains the purpose, usage flow, and audit trail context. No gaps for a simple status check 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 coverage is 100%, and the description only restates the schema's parameter descriptions (sequence and sourceChain) without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool checks the status of a Wormhole bridge transfer. It uses a specific verb (Check) and resource (status of Wormhole bridge transfer), and distinguishes from sibling bridging tools like bridging_bridgeWormhole (which submits transfers).

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 explicitly advises to use this tool after a bridge submission (bridging_bridgeWormhole) and to keep the status with the audit trail. It provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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