xapp_bridgeTalk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the critical behavior that the call blocks until the target returns a result and that arbitrary ExtendScript is evaluated in another process, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of stating timeout defaults or what happens if the target app isn't running.

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?

One dense sentence: the action, the target list with the versioning nuance, and the selection hint, all front-loaded with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description plus the `script` param note ('last expression is returned as a string') cover the return value adequately for this kind of tool. Minor gaps remain around timeout defaults and failure modes when the target app is not running, but nothing blocking for a 2-required-param call.

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 only 50% (`target` and `timeoutSec` have no schema description), and the description compensates for the bigger gap by enumerating valid target app names and the optional version suffix. `from`'s short enum codes (ae/pr/ps/ai) are still not mapped to app names, and timeoutSec has no stated default or unit beyond the name.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: 'from one running Adobe app, send ExtendScript to another ... and wait for its result', and enumerates target apps plus the versioned 'photoshop-27.0' form. This scoping (cross-process, cross-app, synchronous) differentiates it from the in-app script runners like adobe_runScript or ai_runAction without needing their schemas.

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?

'Useful when the target has no direct connection' gives a clear selection condition that implicitly points to the direct-connection path (adobe_runScript / per-app tools) as the alternative. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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