bridge_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does unusually well by disclosing the internal checks performed. It leaves one meaningful gap: a writability probe may touch the filesystem, and the description never states whether the tool is side-effect-free or how failures are surfaced.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the diagnostic scope front-loaded before the usage trigger. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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-param tool with no output schema, the description implies a diagnostic report but does not say what form it takes or whether an unhealthy result surfaces as an error versus a report body. Given the low complexity, this is a minor rather than blocking gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter claims are made that could conflict with the empty schema.

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?

Enumerates the specific checks performed (binary resolution, workspace allowlist, state directory writability, concurrency, metrics), which is far more informative than a generic 'health check'. It is distinguishable from bridge_stats and bridge_shutdown by scope, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Run this first when a task fails for unclear reasons' gives a concrete triggering condition and ordering priority. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. when to prefer bridge_stats) or stating when not to run it.

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