Start the bridge plugin via OSC

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact command sent, the onPC OSC settings required to succeed, and the post-action behavior ('waits briefly and pings the bridge'). It omits failure modes when OSC input is disabled, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the fallback purpose before the procedural prerequisites. The embedded menu path is a bit dense, but every sentence contributes necessary operational detail, so nothing is wasted.

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-param, no-output-schema action tool, the description covers what it does, the precondition for success, and the resulting behavior. It is complete enough for correct invocation, missing only explicit failure/error handling.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly requires no arguments and instead documents environment-level requirements (GMA3_OSC_PORT line, Receive Command), which is the relevant equivalent of parameter context.

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 (start), resource (the bridge plugin), and mechanism (OSC /cmd to onPC). It also frames itself as a 'fallback,' which distinguishes it from the normal bridge operation path used by all other gma3_* tools.

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?

Explicitly names the condition for use ('when the bridge is not running') and lists the required OSC configuration prerequisites. It does not name a specific alternative recovery tool, but the fallback framing implies the normal path clearly enough.

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