vigbrg_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'read-only', which usefully signals that this tool will not mutate system state. However, it does not disclose what the status output contains, whether it can fail, or any other behavioral context beyond the read-only claim.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: 'Vigor bridge status (read-only)'. It conveys the essential action, resource, and safety characteristic in minimal space.

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 read-only status tool, the description provides the minimum needed to invoke it safely. However, there is no output schema, no sibling differentiation, and no description of what 'bridge status' means, so an agent cannot fully predict what the result will look like or why it should choose this tool over related vigbrg_* tools.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The schema shows no properties and the description adds nothing needed about inputs. Per the 0-parameter baseline, this is adequately handled.

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 states the resource ('Vigor bridge status, read-only) and the operation ('status'), making it clear this is a read operation on a specific component. It is somewhat generic compared to siblings like vigbrg_wanstatus or vigbrg_wlanstatus, but the name plus description is enough to identify the general capability.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use vigbrg_status versus the many related sibling tools such as vigbrg_wanstatus, vigbrg_wlanstatus, or vigbrg_set. The description only states what the tool is; it does not explain selection criteria or alternatives, so the agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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