bridge_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that it is unsafe for pipelines and interactive-only, that it enumerates every instance, and that a missing bridge 'degrades to a clear entry, never an error'—important fallback behavior. It also names the named-pipe transport. These traits go well beyond a simple statement of purpose.

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 compact but information-dense, with a front-loaded safety warning, a clear list of report contents, and a concise fallback behavior explanation. Every clause adds useful context; no waste.

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 has no output schema, but the description effectively describes the return content by listing the report fields. It also covers edge cases (missing bridge), usage constraints (interactive-only), and the single parameter. For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is thoroughly complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, with a clear schema description: 'per-instance pipe connect/probe timeout in seconds (default 3)'. The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'report[s] every Power BI Desktop instance on this machine through the Desktop Bridge named pipe' and enumerates the specific data reported (bridge availability, manifest methods, file path, unsaved-changes flag, PBIR pages, AS engine ports). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_open_models and framing its scope as all instances, not just models.

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 explicitly warns 'UNSAFE-FOR-PIPELINE (interactive attach only)', giving clear context that it is not for automated pipelines and should be used only during interactive attachment. It also mentions the sibling list_open_models as a source for AS engine ports, providing a connection to alternatives, though it does not explicitly state when to choose one over the other.

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