bridge_get_operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds value: it clarifies the call performs no re-execution, is a readback of saved state, and notes 'permissions: none'. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, keeping it at a solid 4.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage context; no filler. The trailing version/permissions tag is metadata rather than description, which slightly dilutes the prose.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers what the tool does and when to call it, leaving only minor gaps such as behavior on a missing or expired idempotency key.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry descriptions ('Original write tool name', 'Original _idempotencyKey'). The description only echoes the notion of using the original name and key, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read the status and saved result of a write') and clarifies it does so 'without executing it again', which conceptually separates it from re-running the sibling write tools. It stops short of naming any sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Gives explicit conditions for use: 'while waiting for approval or resolving an uncertain result', and instructs the caller to reuse the original tool name and idempotency key. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the triggering context is concrete.

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