ask_bridging

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool answers questions, implying a read-only, informational operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as response format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core function and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a Q&A tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of answers to expect, how detailed they are, or any limitations (e.g., scope of knowledge). For a tool that likely provides informational responses, more context on behavior and output would be helpful to set proper expectations.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters ('question' and 'include_code_example') clearly. The description doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, constraints, or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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's purpose: 'Answer questions about Arbitrum bridging and cross-chain messaging patterns.' It specifies the verb ('answer questions') and the domain/resource ('Arbitrum bridging and cross-chain messaging patterns'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ask_orbit' or 'ask_stylus', which likely answer questions about different topics, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ask_orbit' or 'ask_stylus' for comparison, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage based on the topic alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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