bridge_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it reports real permission status, includes version info, and explicitly states it does not request permissions, which matters for a diagnostics tool.

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 covering the resources, followed by one behavioral caveat and a compact version/permission tag. No filler, though the bracketed metadata is slightly terse.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. The description covers scope, permission behavior, and version, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 clarify; baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly introduces no parameter discussion.

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 verb (Inspect) with concrete resources: helper, macOS permission status, configuration, version, native availability. An agent can tell what it returns. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling bridge tools like bridge_list_capabilities or bridge_get_operation.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer this is the diagnostic entry point. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling bridge tools, though 'Does not request permissions' hints at a boundary.

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