launch-bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that no Startup script is installed and no panel remains open, and it warns about the one-instance concurrency limit. It does not cover what happens if a bridge is already running, but it gives meaningful operational context beyond the bare action.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct information: the action, the exclusions, and the prerequisite/constraint. There is no redundant or filler content, and the key scope is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the launch action, prerequisites, and concurrency constraint, which is solid for a small tool. However, it leaves the year parameter's role and the 'selected' version mechanism ambiguous, and it does not suggest how to verify a successful launch, such as using bridge-status. These gaps matter for an agent deciding whether to omit or set year.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter, year, is left unexplained. The phrase 'selected installed AE version' is the only indirect hint that year selects the version, but it does not explicitly connect year to the parameter. The optional nature of year and the fallback selection behavior are also unclear.

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 opens with a specific action, 'Launch the background bridge,' and names the target context, 'selected installed AE version.' It also distinguishes itself from alternatives by explicitly stating what it does not do: 'without installing a Startup script or keeping a panel open,' which separates it from tools like execute-jsx or run-command.

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 prerequisites and constraints: 'Enable scripting file access in AE first' and 'Only launch in one AE instance at a time.' It implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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