bridgeListRefs

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

The description carries no behavioral information beyond the HTTP method. It does not disclose side effects, return behavior, or any operational context. With no annotations available, the description completely fails to inform the agent about what happens when this tool is invoked.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It consists of a single endpoint string and does not earn its place by adding value. It is not a meaningful description.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a 0% parameter coverage, the description is completely inadequate. The tool has moderate complexity with three parameters, but the description offers zero context, making it impossible for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (repo, bridgeUrl, ownerPubkey). The agent is left without any semantic clues about what each parameter means or how to use them.

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 is just 'GET /api/nostr/repo/refs', which is an HTTP endpoint rather than an explanation of what the tool does. It restates the resource 'refs' without providing a verb or action, and does not clarify what listing refs means. This is close to a tautology, offering no insight into the tool's actual purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like bridgeListFiles and bridgeGetFileContent exist, but the description does not differentiate this tool or suggest any context for using it.

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