bridge_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Report on' implies a read-only diagnostic action, and the listed items (installed, running, ports, certificate, configured accounts) make the scope transparent. It does not explicitly say 'does not modify state', but the reporting verb strongly implies a safe inspection tool.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then lists the report's contents. Every phrase adds useful information and there is no wasted text.

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?

For a no-parameter status-reporting tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the subject matter and the aspects reported, and the output schema is available to explain return values.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers all input concerns. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond what is already self-evident.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report on') with a specific resource ('local ProtonMail Bridge') and enumerates exactly what the report covers: installed, running, ports, certificate, and configured accounts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ping, check_health, and list_accounts.

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 intended use case is clear: retrieve status information about the local ProtonMail Bridge. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as check_health or ping, nor does it state when not to use it.

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