Inspect background ping delivery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool reads recent receipts, caps results at 100, clarifies that 'Accepted' does not mean work completion, notes permission checks for held/refused states, and states unknown outcomes are never replayed automatically. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema, though read-only/no-side-effect guarantees are only implied.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core read operation and result limit. Each sentence adds useful clarification without waste.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers result-limit and state meanings reasonably well. However, it omits usage context and fails to explain the `agent` parameter, leaving gaps an agent must infer.

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?

There is one optional parameter, `agent`, with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions `agent` or explains whether it filters wake receipts by agent, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read up to 100 recent wake receipts with a per-state summary.' It clearly identifies the tool as an inspection/status reader, but it does not differentiate from siblings such as bridge_wait, bridge_ack, or bridge_inbox.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains state semantics but never states when this status check is appropriate or when another bridge tool should be used instead.

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