health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that read-only mode blocks writes and arbitrary execution while Coding mode runs upstream tools with OS account permissions, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it is unclear whether this describes the health_check tool itself or the bridge generally, and no return behavior is disclosed despite there being 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?

The definition is short and front-loads the checked dimensions, which is good. But the second sentence is compressed to the point of ambiguity (subject of 'Read-only' and 'Coding' is unstated), costing more clarity than the brevity saves.

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 zero parameters this should be a simple definition, but the absence of an output schema means the description should say what a health check yields (status fields, mode indicator, error shape) and it does not. An agent knows roughly what is inspected but not what it will receive back.

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; there is no parameter meaning the description could add. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input contract.

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 names three things being checked (bridge connection, upstream availability, active mode) but has no verb and leans on undefined jargon ('Starmux bridge', 'active mode', 'Coding') that an agent cannot resolve from this text. It is distinct from the file/session siblings, but the noun-phrase construction makes the purpose read more like a label than a statement of what the tool does.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool (e.g., before a batch of upstream operations, or after a connection error) and no reference to alternatives. The sentence about read-only vs. Coding mode describes system behavior, not the conditions that should trigger a health check.

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