bridge_version

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, and the description does not contradict that. Beyond safety it adds nothing: no indication of whether it reports a locally installed bridge or a connected remote one, whether a connection is required, or what fields come back. With annotations covering only safety, this is a thin disclosure.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the core subject (version) is front-loaded. Slight deduction because it reads as a noun phrase rather than a complete statement of action, but nothing is wasted.

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-argument, read-only query with no output schema, the description conveys enough to select and call it correctly. The lack of any note on connection requirements or output shape is a minor gap, but annotational and structural complexity here is near zero.

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 the schema imposes nothing to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description's mention of 'protocol level' usefully characterizes the return content rather than any input.

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 the specific resource (bridge version) and the shape of the data it surfaces (the protocol level implemented), which is more informative than the bare tool name. It implicitly contrasts with siblings like bridge_status and bridge_logs, though it does not explicitly say how it differs 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_swagger. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a lightweight version query. No prerequisites or conditions are given.

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