Call `window.electronAPI.<method>(...args)`

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

Describes that the result is awaited if it's a promise, but does not disclose potential side effects or destructiveness. Since annotations are absent, the description could be more transparent about risks associated with invoking arbitrary methods.

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 sentences with an inline example. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Adequately describes input and return behavior. Could mention error handling or security considerations, but for a testing tool it is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving specific method name examples and noting that args must be JSON-serialisable, which is not in the 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?

Clearly states it invokes any method on window.electronAPI and includes concrete examples like dbCheckConnectivity and getConfig. Distinguishes from sibling evaluate by focusing on pre-exposed bridge methods.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to test IPC handlers directly', providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like evaluate.

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