Ping Altium bridge

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond these: 'Altium may be started by the bridge' and error types (AD_NOT_FOUND, TIMEOUT, lock timeout). This helps the agent anticipate side effects and failure modes, though the error list is generic (referenced as 'same as other live tools').

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Parameters, Returns, Prerequisites, Errors). It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately gives usage context. Every sentence contributes essential information, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the description fully covers the necessary context: purpose, usage timing, prerequisites, return format, and error behavior. There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return value. The description leaves no critical questions unanswered for an agent.

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 the schema fully covers this aspect. The description explicitly states 'Parameters: None,' which removes any ambiguity. While it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, the explicit confirmation is helpful and aligns with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 clearly states the tool's specific purpose: 'Verify the DelphiScript bridge responds inside Altium.' This is a concrete verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools, and it further reinforces the distinction by explaining where it fits in the workflow relative to get_server_status and expensive reads.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'After get_server_status looks good; before expensive PCB/schematic reads.' This gives a clear temporal and conditional usage context. It also mentions prerequisites (AD must be installed) and alludes to alternatives by positioning this tool against get_server_status.

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