Verify the ContextMint Bridge connection end-to-end

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by enumerating the returned diagnostics (bridge role, port, version, extension link state, elapsed time) and enumerating the failure classes the hint distinguishes (bridge never came up / extension not connected / browser can't serve capability / server-side problem). It also confirms 'no auth required'. This is real behavioral context an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a short routing instruction, front-loaded with the action and ending with the failure-mode enumeration. The list of diagnostics is long but each item earns its place; the only minor cost is one very overloaded sentence.

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 carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so comprehensively – listing every diagnostic field and the interpretive hint. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the call is parameter-free, which it implicitly does by describing a self-contained round-trip.

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 action (round-trips a public booli.se URL through ContextMint Bridge), the exact resource (/graphql), and the nature of the result (diagnostics). It is unmistakably a health/diagnostic tool, distinct from the listing/search/stats siblings, without opening any schema.

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 says when to call it: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' That is a clear trigger condition and implicitly positions it as a fallback to the other booli_* tools.

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