Check Proton Bridge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the check targets the local Proton Bridge and returns INBOX counts, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe failure behavior when the Bridge is unavailable, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the target ('local Proton Bridge connection'), the action ('Check'), and the return value ('INBOX counts').

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-parameter read-only status tool with a defined output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete enough. An agent knows what the tool does, what it returns at a high level, and that it is safe to invoke.

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 is empty, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled.

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 states a specific action ('Check the local Proton Bridge connection') and a concrete output ('return INBOX counts'), making its purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling message and attachment tools, which operate on mailbox content rather than connection status.

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 clearly implies the tool is for verifying Proton Bridge connectivity and getting INBOX count information, providing solid context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool serves the same status-check role, so the usage context is sufficient.

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