Read External GDB Bridge Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description earns credit for adding real behavioral context: it does not renew the heartbeat, does not disclose connection secrets, and “Disconnected retains exclusive ownership.” The warning that disconnect does not mean the target or shell recovered is a substantive side-effect clarification beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences with the core action and its negative side effects front-loaded. The second sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct information about ownership and status interpretation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the semantic caveat about “Disconnected” that an agent would otherwise misread; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both `owner` and `bridge_id` fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or provenance beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 external RSP bridge status”) and implicitly separates itself from debug_bridge_renew by saying it reads status “without renewing its heartbeat.” It does not explicitly name the sibling to use for renewal, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 “without renewing its heartbeat” clause hints that debug_bridge_renew is the tool for keeping a bridge alive, and the note about “Disconnected” guides interpretation of results. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus debug_bridge_list, debug_bridge_report, or debug_bridge_renew.

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