bridge_swagger

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's burden is lighter. It usefully discloses the content of the result (grouped route counts plus unknown routes) but says nothing about configuration requirements, protocol negotiation mechanics, or how the digest is produced.

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 with the output content front-loaded after the resource. Efficient, though the phrase 'negotiated protocol' is jargon that costs some immediate readability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden alone. It sketches the two return components but not their shape or format, and the meaning of routes 'unknown to the negotiated protocol' is left for the agent to infer.

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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema.

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 resource (the instance's OpenAPI surface) and states exactly what it yields: route counts per group and routes unknown to the negotiated protocol. That distinguishes it from diagnostic siblings like bridge_status, bridge_version, and bridge_logs, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from them.

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 statement of when to call this versus bridge_status, bridge_help, or bridge_logs, and no prerequisites or context for the 'negotiated protocol' framing. The agent must infer it is a diagnostic/digest call.

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