pcb_bridge_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. It indicates this is a read-only status check (查看 = view), but does not mention safety implications, required permissions, or potential side effects. Given zero annotations, a 3 is reasonable but it could explicitly state it's non-destructive.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes key output details. No fluff 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 diagnostic tool, the description is adequately complete. It specifies what status is checked. However, without an output schema, it would be helpful to mention the return type (e.g., JSON structure), but given the simplicity, a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters; description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is elevated because no parameter documentation is needed at all. The description clearly states what it returns (service ID, connection counts, active window), which adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 the tool's function (view Bridge Server connection status) and lists specific information returned (service ID, EDA window connection count, active window). It's distinct from pcb_ping and pcb_get_state in scope, though not explicitly contrasted with them, so it loses one point for lacking an explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_ping or pcb_list_eda_windows. The description does not provide context about typical usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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