agent-bridge status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key traits: this is a passive reporting query over connection state and last-error reason, and it remains callable when no app is connected. It stops short of explicitly stating it has no side effects and does not itself attempt a reconnect, which would fully close the gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core status content, followed by the single edge-case note. Every clause maps to a distinct reported fact; there is no filler.

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, the description must convey return values and it does so by enumerating the four reported facts. It does not give field names or the shape of the response, but for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool the coverage is nearly sufficient.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or confuses the empty schema.

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 names the resource (the agent bridge connection) and enumerates exactly what is reported: connection state, app/session identity, tool count, and the reason for the last connect failure. That is specific enough to pick out the tool, though the verb is implicit (it reports/reads rather than performing an action) and there are no siblings to differentiate against.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: an agent can infer this is the tool to call to diagnose bridge connection state. The one explicit conditional, 'Works with no app connected,' usefully signals it is safe to call in failure states, but there is no stated when-not or named alternative.

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