Bridge Status

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond this: the tool is always available, and describes the automatic appearance of other tools when an editor starts. This explains the tool's behavior in the broader system workflow.

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 sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient and contains no filler. Could be slightly more concise by removing the second sentence about 'restart the client' if not essential, but overall it is well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its context in the toolset. It explains when it is used and how it relates to other tools. The only potential gap is not describing what the return value looks like, but since there is no output schema, the description still provides sufficient context.

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 the schema already fully documents that. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none. A score of 5 is appropriate as there is nothing missing.

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 indicates the tool checks connection status to a running Unreal editor and provides guidance if not connected. It specifies the verb ('Whether... connected') and the resource ('HullForge to Unreal editor bridge'), making the purpose clear.

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 description explains when to use the tool ('always available even when no editor is open') and what happens when an editor starts (other tools appear automatically). It implies the tool is for checking connection status and not for initiating connections, which is useful guidance.

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