bridge_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does add genuine value: 'API presence does not guarantee operation success' warns that a positive report is not a capability guarantee, and the version notes explain that Free 21.1+ uses a Lua native-file worker while Python runs outside Resolve. It still omits whether the call is read-only, whether it incurs startup cost or can fail, and how quickly it returns.

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 leading sentence is well front-loaded and immediately actionable. However, the trailing lines read like changelog fragments ('Python startup is verified on macOS Free 21.0.3.7') that are of marginal use to an agent deciding whether to call the tool, diluting focus without adding decision-relevant structure.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema that already defines return values, the description supplies what structured data cannot: the list of reported capabilities and a caveat that presence does not imply successful operation. It is nearly complete, with the only real gap being how it relates to sibling diagnostic tools.

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 meaning for the description to supplement, and the schema is 100% covered at baseline. The description correctly implies the tool is unparameterized, but the bulk of its text is release-note trivia rather than argument semantics, which is appropriate here since no arguments exist and the baseline is 4 given zero params—this description's added text does not relate to parameters.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates the exact resources returned: Resolve version, transport, API presence, and source decoder availability. That is concrete enough to act on, but the description never distinguishes this probe from close siblings such as resolve_status, project_info, or project_health, so an agent must infer which diagnostic tool to pick.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus resolve_status or project_health, and no preconditions or exclusions. The later sentences describe environment caveats rather than usage routing, so the agent is left to guess the intended trigger for this tool.

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