bridge_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond a simple statement of function by adding context about a key limitation (API presence vs. operation success) and clarifies the execution environment (Console worker in Resolve Free). This gives the agent important behavioral insight beyond the basic purpose.

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 concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional sentence adds valuable context about limitations and execution environment without unnecessary detail. It's well structured and front-loaded.

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 has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete in what it does, but it doesn't describe the return format or structure of the report. Since it reports multiple items, the agent might need to know how results are presented (e.g., object keys, boolean flags). The description could be more explicit about the output structure.

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 0 parameters, so the schema provides no semantics to cover. The description fully compensates by specifying what is reported (version, transport, API presence, decoder availability). With no parameters to explain, baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 it reports on Resolve version, transport, API presence, and source decoder availability. The verb 'report' and the listed items distinguish it from siblings like resolve_status, which likely focuses on current status, and project_info. It could be more specific about what 'transport' entails, but it's clear enough.

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 provides clear context: it explains that API presence doesn't guarantee successful operations, and that new review workflows use ordinary timeline APIs and work through the Console worker in Resolve Free. This helps the agent understand when to use this tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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