bridge_status

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral boundaries: it uses the official auth status, makes no inference call, and does not return remaining Claude allowance. It does not describe permissions or failure modes, but the added caveats are meaningful.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core purpose, then immediately add the most important behavioral limits. There is no redundant or filler content.

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, no-output-schema status tool, the description explains the Claude return value and rules out remaining allowance. However, it does not fully clarify what the tool returns for Codex authentication even though Codex is named in the primary check.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score for a parameterless tool is appropriate, and the description does not need to invent parameter guidance.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: check local Codex and Claude subscription authentication. It also distinguishes itself from inference/task operations by stating 'No inference call', helping an agent separate it from the sibling task tools.

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 description makes clear this is for authentication/status checking rather than task submission or inference. It also sets two exclusions, no inference call and no remaining Claude allowance, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use for other operations.

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