bridge_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' clearly indicates a read-only status operation, and the list of backends defines scope. However, it does not explain how the status is determined (e.g., local configuration vs live connectivity checks) or whether any authentication or side effects are involved.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to clarifying what the tool reports.

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 simple status tool, the core purpose is conveyed, but the description omits any explanation of the optional project_path parameter and offers no usage guidance relative to sibling diagnostic tools. The lack of an output schema makes some return-value ambiguity acceptable, but the parameter gap remains.

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 schema has one parameter, project_path, with zero description coverage, and the tool description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether project_path is required, what it should point to, or what happens when it is null. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema field name.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource (backend configuration status), enumerating the exact backends covered: GitHub CI, App Store Connect, remote Mac, and USB device. It also tells the agent what output to expect (what is configured and what is missing), distinguishing it from the action-oriented sibling tools.

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 implies a diagnostic use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ios_doctor or mac_doctor. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which another tool should be preferred.

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