bridge_status

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

With zero annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden and excels: it discloses a no-inference cost guarantee, an explicit epistemic honesty policy ('reported as unverified rather than guessed'), and a security guarantee ('Never returns credentials'). These behavioral traits go well beyond what the empty schema reveals.

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 prior sentences, each earning its place: scope, then cost/accuracy behavior, then security. The second sentence is list-heavy but necessary since no annotations or output schema exist — the description is the sole documentation. Slightly long but never wasteful.

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 low-complexity 0-param, read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth and covers all critical operations: exact contents of the report, inference cost (none), accuracy semantics (unverified vs guessed), and credential safety (never). Nothing material is left unstated.

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 and an empty schema, so the baseline of 4 per the rubric applies. The description adds no conflicting param info; the only implied input is the health-report scope itself, which is irrelevant for a no-arg call. No compensation needed for schema gaps.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Report AgentBridge health') and exhaustively enumerates the report's scope: version, directory, CLIs, model availability, model ids, jobs, warnings. This specificity clearly delineates it from siblings codex_run/antigravity_run, which are execution-oriented, making the health/introspection function unmistakable.

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 health/introspection framing implies pre-flight or diagnostic use (checking sign-in state, git verification, per-model availability) with clear context. However, no explicit exclusions or named alternatives appear in the description; sibling distinction is inferred from context rather than stated.

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