defold_bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that args are merged into the request and that the return is the frame or JSON response. It doesn't mention error behavior, side effects, or whether this can mutate state, but for a passthrough tool the disclosed behavior is reasonable.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The purpose, usage, and return behavior are all covered compactly, and the most important framing (fallback) is 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?

For a generic passthrough tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, how args behave, and what it returns. It could mention error cases or the fact that cmd examples are in the schema, but it's largely complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a little meaning by explaining that args are merged and cmd is the command string, but it doesn't go beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('passthrough') and resource ('bridge command'), and explicitly frames it as a fallback for anything the named tools don't cover. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the catch-all, though it doesn't name a specific sibling.

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 gives clear context: use this when the named tools don't cover the command. It doesn't enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but the fallback framing is explicit enough for an agent to route correctly.

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