get_app_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavior (detecting native dialog blocks) and suggests a read-only health report, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, requires a running app, or behaves differently when the bridge is down. This is useful but incomplete context.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning, with no repetition or filler. It is an excellent example of minimal yet effective prose.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are documented, and the simple one-parameter schema reduces complexity. However, the description lacks usage context, such as when to call this tool or what 'bridge health' entails in practice. It is adequate for a simple read-only tool but misses opportunities to fully inform the agent.

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 only parameter is 'port' with a default of 7891, but the description does not explain its purpose or how it relates to process and bridge health. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate, leaving the agent to guess what changing the port would do.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs: 'Report process + bridge health' and 'detect likely native dialog blocks.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_app_state or get_dom_tree by focusing on health and dialog detection rather than app state or UI structure.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations like 'when you suspect the app is unresponsive' or compare it to get_app_state, get_logs, or wait_until_ready. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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