ap_bridge_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses that no round trip is made, what data is reported (spool directory resolution, heartbeat existence, clock progression, versions, project, queue depth), and that it produces a plain-language diagnosis plus next step. This is exemplary transparency.

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 information-dense but tightly structured: an opening purpose, a complete list of reported diagnostics, and a direct invocation instruction. Every clause adds useful guidance and the most important usage instruction is placed at the end for emphasis.

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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, why it is reliable during transport failures, what counts as the only valid liveness test, and exactly when to call it first.

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 single parameter is fully described in the input schema, including its default value and behavioral effect, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not add param-level meaning, but per the baseline rule, high coverage makes 3 appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action ('Diagnose the connection to ArmorPaint') and then enumerates the exact diagnostic outputs. It distinguishes itself from likely siblings like ap_ping by stating that the advancing heartbeat clock is 'the only valid liveness test' and by clarifying that this tool is answered server-side without a round trip.

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 final sentence gives an explicit, unambiguous usage rule: 'Call this FIRST whenever any other tool reports a transport error.' It also explains why this is the right choice by noting it works even when the bridge is otherwise failing, giving the agent a clear decision rule.

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