get_bridge_health

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

No annotations are provided, but the description's explicit 'Returns' wording clearly signals a read-only operation. It lists the specific output fields, giving insight into what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly state that no state is modified or mention any prerequisites or failure conditions.

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 compact, consisting of two sentences: the first precisely enumerates the returned metrics, and the second states the intended use. Every phrase adds value, and it avoids repeating schema information.

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 its simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool returns and why to use it. It names specific metrics and a diagnostic purpose, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 has no properties, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output and use case, and no parameter explanation is needed.

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 uses the active verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource 'performance metrics from the M4L bridge device,' listing concrete metrics such as poll execution time, WebSocket message size, LiveAPI cache size, and track count. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_details and get_session_context, which focus on different domains.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use to diagnose performance issues or confirm the device is running efficiently,' providing a clear usage context. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though this is not critical for a read-only health check with no parameters.

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