wb_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Check' and the phrase 'call first if unsure' imply a safe, read-only status operation. It does not elaborate on return format or error behavior, but for a simple status check this is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and information 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 zero-parameter status check with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers purpose and usage. It specifies what is checked (daemon + extension) and when to call it (first if unsure). No relevant gaps exist.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description doesn't need to explain params, and the empty input schema confirms this. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 'Check WebBridge daemon + browser extension connection,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only readiness check tool among action-oriented wb_* 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 guidance 'Call first if unsure whether the bridge is ready' is explicit and direct, telling exactly when to invoke this tool. This is strong usage guidance, equivalent to naming alternatives or exclusions.

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