run-bridge-test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'apply test effects', implying the tool mutates state, but it does not explain any safety implications, side effects, or what 'verify communication' means operationally. There is no mention of prerequisites, return values, or potential disruptions, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Run' (verb), 'bridge test effects script' (resource), 'verify communication and apply test effects' (purpose). There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the clear purpose stated, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and why. However, it does not elaborate on what 'test effects' are or how results are observed, which could be useful for full completeness, but this is not critical for a zero-parameter test script.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline per rubric is 4. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining the script's purpose, but since there are no parameters to document, it does not need to compensate for missing schema details. The description is sufficient for a no-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Run the bridge test effects script'—a specific verb and resource. It also explains the intended outcome: 'to verify communication and apply test effects'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run-script, which is generic, and apply-effect, which likely targets specific effects rather than a test script.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to verify communication and apply test effects. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-contained enough to guide usage. Without specifying when not to use it, it falls short of a 5.

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