bridge_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Counters' implies a read-only, non-mutating call and the enumeration of metric categories gives some idea of the payload, but nothing states whether the read is non-destructive, whether it is cached or point-in-time, or what a single row/record looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the metric scope is stated before the purpose. It is efficient but perhaps under-specified for a stats endpoint an agent will need to interpret.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations to carry return-shape or safety information, so the description should say more about the structure of the counters (unit, aggregation window, dimensions). It names the metric families but leaves format and semantics of the returned values unspecified.

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 the schema carries no semantic load and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no misleading parameter implications.

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?

States a specific resource (counters/metrics) and enumerates what is measured: job outcomes, tier mix, and duration. That is well beyond a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closest sibling bridge_health, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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 trailing phrase 'for capacity planning' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus bridge_health, nor on how often or in what context to refresh the counters. Usage is only inferred.

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