bridge_status

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

The tool has no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'ALL channels' and the per_channel parameter, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if results change over time, or any rate limits. Given the read-like nature, basic safety context is missing.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the key purpose and usage context. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 1 parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and the description adds some context, it is adequate but could be improved by mentioning the return format or when to use this over siblings like bridge_receive.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is well-described in the schema. The description adds further context by indicating it applies per channel, which aligns with the schema. Minimal additional value 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves the last N messages from ALL channels, distinguishing it from other bridge tools. However, it could explicitly name the verb 'get' in the description.

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 says 'useful for getting a full picture of what's happening across agents,' which implies a monitoring use case, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from other tools like bridge_receive or bridge_channels.

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