Discover local wake targets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: this is a read-only discovery call with no side effects ('does not wake anything'). It does not explain what is returned when the host does not expose a session, which would be the natural remaining question.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the positive behavior followed by the negative scope. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool reads and what it does not do. The only gap is the behavior when the host does not expose a session, which the 'when the host exposes it' clause gestures at but does not resolve.

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 the schema requires no further semantic detail; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty input schema.

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 specific verb and resource: read live Claude session IDs plus this conversation's own session, with a clear conditional qualifier ('when the host exposes it'). It is distinguishable from the wake/inbox siblings, though it does not name them directly.

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?

Explicitly scopes out adjacent behaviors ('Does not wake anything or read conversation content'), which routes the agent away from bridge_wake_status and content-reading siblings. It never states a positive when-to-use trigger, but the exclusion gives clear context.

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