host_bridge_status

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 does imply a read-only inspection and names the specific state it exposes (plugin, session ID, advertised operations), which is useful context, but it says nothing about whether the call can fail, requires a live host connection, or has side effects.

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?

A single tight sentence with the object of inspection front-loaded after the verb. Nothing is redundant, though 'official-host plugin' is slightly opaque jargon that could be clarified without adding length.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description only needs to frame the purpose and selection context. It covers what is reported but leaves the relationship to the many sibling status/capabilities tools unexplained, which is the main gap for this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage.

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 gives a verb ('Inspect') and a resource ('the running official-host plugin') plus the payload it surfaces (session ID, advertised operations). However, it does not differentiate itself from near-name siblings like host_request_status, orca_capabilities, or host_snapshot, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over them from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as host_request_status. The agent must infer the selection rule entirely from the name and the returned fields.

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