bridge_get_smg_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of signaling side effects. 'Get current' implies a read-only, time-sensitive lookup, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state safety, return format, or prerequisites. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the key action and object, then adds context. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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, parameterless getter with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what is returned (smgID) and why it is needed (cross-chain operations). It lacks explicit return type details and references an external section ('section 1.4') that may not be available to the agent, but the tool is low complexity and the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter syntax. It still adds meaning by naming the returned value (smgID) and its role in cross-chain operations, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names an exact resource ('current Storeman Group ID (smgID)'), immediately clarifying what the tool returns. It also attaches a clear purpose ('for cross-chain operations'), which helps distinguish it from the many other bridge and vault tools.

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 phrase 'for cross-chain operations' gives explicit context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives like bridge_get_quota_and_fee, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is clear.

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