List External GDB Bridge Ports

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint: it discloses that no heartbeat renewal, target I/O, management owner acquisition, or connection secrets are touched, and spells out the authorization model (Host access, no per-bridge owner) and the scan boundary (does not scan OS ports or other Hosts). The "until finalization" clause also explains why a read-only list can be non-idempotent, matching idempotentHint=false.

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 tight paragraph, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and every clause adds either scope or safety detail. Slightly dense (four semicolon-separated qualifiers), but no sentence is wasted.

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 0-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is listed, what is excluded, what is not touched, and which Host boundary applies.

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 baseline is 4; the description correctly does not invent parameter narrative and instead spends its words on scope and behavior.

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 ("List all unfinished external GDB bridges in this Host") and enumerates what each entry carries (bound addresses, ports, Session refs, targets, states). The inclusion/exclusion clause ("includes disconnected/recovering until finalization; excludes closed/failed/restored") further pins the scope. It does not explicitly contrast with debug_bridge_status, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 include/exclude rules imply when this tool is the right choice, but there is no explicit "use X instead of Y" guidance against debug_bridge_status or debug_bridge_report. An agent must infer that this is the bulk-inventory counterpart to the single-bridge status tool.

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