Ping the bridge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the three failure conditions it validates and the return payload (plugin version), which annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the concrete checks and return value. No filler or redundancy.

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, read-only diagnostic tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is verified, the failure modes implied, and what comes back. No output schema exists, and the return value is described in prose instead.

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, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies a no-argument call. It adds no parameter meaning because none is needed.

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 names a specific verb+resource (checks the bridge) and enumerates the exact three preconditions it validates: Blockbench is open, the Stonecut Bridge plugin is listening, and the token is correct. It also states the return value (plugin version), which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like status or screenshot.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the checklist of preconditions, but the description never says explicitly when to call this versus the sibling 'status' tool, which is the obvious alternative for checking connection state. No when-not guidance is given.

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