bridge_tasks

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read-only' adds little. It does add that the response contains per-status counts and a recent task list, which is useful behavior context. However, it does not explain ordering, pagination, or what happens when the channel does not exist.

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 one focused sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the core operation. 'Read-only' adds a compact safety signal even though it is already captured by annotations.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so return shape does not need to be repeated. Still, the description leaves important gaps: distinguishing bridge_tasks from bridge_status, explaining how the optional status parameter interacts with the counts, and noting any channel not found or permission behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning, but it only weakly supports 'channel' and 'status' via wording. It does not explain how status affects the counts and list, what the limit bounds mean in practice, or what values like 'dead' imply semantically.

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 that bridge_tasks inspects a channel's task queue and summarizes it via per-status counts and a recent task list. It is specific about the resource and operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like bridge_status or bridge_channels.

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 implies that this is for inspection and is safe to call, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it versus send, wait, ack, or status tools. It offers no scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations.

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