Check the OpenWhispr bridge

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces a read-only health check without side effects. It adds value beyond the annotations by revealing the dynamic nature of the bridge (port and token change on restart) and enumerating the returned fields (host, port, handshake path, app version). It doesn't describe the exact failure response of the tool itself, but the trigger errors imply that behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and output; the second delivers usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it does so by listing host, port, handshake file path, and app version. It also covers the main usage trigger. It does not specify the response format or behavior when the app is not running, but for a simple read-only health check the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and use it.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so the input surface is fully documented by the schema. With no parameters to explain, the description is not required to compensate, and the baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies a distinct resource ('the local OpenWhispr app... its CLI bridge'), then lists the returned data. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on notes, folders, transcriptions, dictionary, and usage.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call this first when another tool fails with bridge_not_running, bridge_unreachable or unauthorized.' It also adds crucial context that the port and token change on every app restart, making the guidance actionable and unambiguous.

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