bridge_to_claude

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool creates a chat and returns pasteForPeer for the human to paste into Claude Code, explicitly noting 'Nothing auto-opens Claude'. This sets correct expectations for an interactive, non-automated process, though it does not cover potential side effects or permission needs.

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, front-loaded with the bridge concept, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 simple tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main action, the return value (pasteForPeer), and a critical caveat (nothing auto-opens). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, even if additional side effects are not mentioned.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (from, title, message) already described inline. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'creates a chat' and returns 'pasteForPeer', clearly identifying the tool as a bridge to Claude Code. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_chat or chat_say, which serve general chat purposes.

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 implies its usage context (bridging DeepSeek/Cursor to Claude Code) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling tool comparisons are mentioned.

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