Verify the ContextMint Bridge connection end-to-end

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

Annotations cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it discloses the probe target, the exact diagnostic fields returned, the failure-mode classes it distinguishes, and that no auth is required. This is rich disclosure for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the action and probe target lead, the returned fields and failure-mode hints follow, and the invocation condition closes. Every clause carries diagnostic information, though the long enumeration of returned fields is slightly heavy.

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 return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields (role, port, version, extension link, elapsed time, hint) and the distinctions between failure modes. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result 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 and there is nothing to disambiguate; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 URL through ContextMint Bridge) plus the exact resource (/robots.txt) and the diagnostic nature of the result. It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, which are all real Redfin data/session 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 says 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke,' giving the agent a concrete trigger condition relative to the real tools. No alternatives needed because its role as a fallback diagnostic is unambiguous.

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