get_bridge_status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the tool consumes zero cap units and reads state already held by the server rather than calling the browser. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first captures the tool's full semantic scope, and the second adds cost behavior plus a practical checkpoint. The structure front-loads the core purpose and supports quick agent scanning.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists every reported aspect, explains the cap-cost behavior, and gives a concrete when-to-call scenario. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret its purpose.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is trivially 100% covered with no properties. No parameter documentation is needed, so the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies; the description correctly focuses on outputs and usage instead.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report the bridge's own state,' and enumerates the exact state fields it returns (extension attached, plan tier, signed-in status, remote approvals, MCP cap usage). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on tabs, scripts, or WebMCP actions.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Check this before a long run' and explains the economic rationale by noting it costs no cap units. It does not mention when-not-to-use or name an alternative, but for a unique status check the main use case is clear.

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