Verify the ContextMint Bridge connection end-to-end

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, but the description goes further by stating 'Read-only, no auth required' and detailing the diagnostic return values. It also explains that the plain-English hint distinguishes bridge-not-up, extension-not-connected, browser capability issues, and server-side problems, which is rich behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Despite being detailed, the description is front-loaded with the core action and diagnostic output, followed by a single usage sentence. The URL and enumerated diagnostic fields all earn their place because they define exactly what the tool checks and returns.

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 return values and does so comprehensively: bridge role, port, version, extension link state, elapsed time, and interpretive hints. It also covers auth requirements and the failure-routing use case, leaving no critical gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

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 states a specific action (round-trips a public GraphQL URL through ContextMint Bridge) and a specific outcome (connection diagnostics covering bridge role, port, version, extension link, round-trip time, and hints). It is clearly a diagnostic tool, distinguishing it from the data-oriented sibling tools like toast_list_orders and toast_get_menu.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' That directly routes the agent to this tool as a fallback diagnostic after another Toast tool fails, with no ambiguity about the alternative.

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