bridge_check_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is a cross-chain status check and that it can handle hashes from either chain, but it does not disclose the return format, whether the operation is read-only (though implied), or how errors like 'hash not found' are handled. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a clarifying note about the parameter. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no redundancy.

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?

For a simple status check with one parameter, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what input it accepts, and how it differs from siblings. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note about the expected return values (e.g., status levels, pending confirmation) would improve completeness. The 'section 4.1' reference is cryptic and adds little.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with the txHash parameter already described as 'Transaction hash from source or destination chain.' The description adds marginal value by repeating this in natural language and referencing a section, but it does not go beyond the schema semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 "Check cross-chain bridge transaction status" with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying "cross-chain bridge" and noting that it accepts hashes from either side of the bridge, which sets it apart from single-chain status tools like vechainstats_get_transaction_status.

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 clear context by stating that the tool accepts a hash from either the source or destination chain, which tells the agent when to use it (when a bridge transaction hash is available). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using vechainstats_get_transaction_status for on-chain transactions or xflows_check_status for a different bridge.

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