hashport_get_bridge_steps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'step-by-step instructions', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this is a simulation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., textual steps vs. structured data). For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get step-by-step instructions for bridging assets via Hashport'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the step-by-step instructions entail, how they are returned, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool that likely involves cross-network asset bridging, more context on output format and usage constraints is needed to be fully helpful to 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented (e.g., sourceNetworkId as 'Source network ID'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these parameters are used to generate bridging instructions. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 purpose: 'Get step-by-step instructions for bridging assets via Hashport'. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'step-by-step instructions', making it distinct from sibling tools like hashport_validate_bridge or hashport_get_transfers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hashport_get_network_assets or hashport_get_supported_assets in terms of output type, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing to validate a bridge first with hashport_validate_bridge, or when to choose this over other hashport_get_* tools for asset or network information. Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent must infer based on tool names alone.

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