bridge_status

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it guarantees keys are never shown, clarifies the status is local to this machine, and limits the tool to status observation. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by adding a security-relevant limitation and directing disruptive operations elsewhere.

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-only status tool with strong safety annotations, the description is complete: it states what status information is provided, that secrets are never exposed, and where to perform related mutating operations. No critical guidance 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema already fully covers the parameter surface and no compensation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool reports local bridge status: which securities firms are linked on this machine and which sessions remain valid. This is a specific read-only resource query and is clearly distinct from the broker order/account siblings.

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 explicitly states what this tool is not for: it never displays keys, and linking/revoking is only done via the CLI tool `mcp-trading`. This provides a clear when-not-to-use boundary, though it does not explicitly name alternative MCP tools for checking status.

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