bridge_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description is the sole source of return information and it fully discloses the payload (version, connection state, full tool list with one-line descriptions), which is meaningful added context. It doesn't mention pagination or payload size for the all-tools listing, but for a zero-side-effect tool the coverage is solid.

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?

A single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core idea ('One-call orientation') before enumerating the three components returned. No filler, no redundancy.

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 zero-param, read-only orientation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to know what comes back. The only gap is routing guidance versus the overlapping bridge_version/bridge_status/bridge_swagger siblings, which the description does not address.

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 by the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain beyond confirming this is a no-argument call, which it implicitly does.

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 a specific verb-driven purpose (one-call orientation) and enumerates exactly what it returns: version, connection state, and a catalog of every tool with one-line descriptions. This is clear and concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like bridge_version or bridge_status, which cover overlapping subsets of the same information.

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?

'One-call orientation' implies the intended usage (bootstrap/discovery at the start of a session), but this is left to inference. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when to prefer bridge_version, bridge_status, or bridge_swagger instead of this consolidated call.

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