get_bridge_telemetry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying that returned data is aggregate and privacy-preserving, and lists specific metrics (pending counts, busy ops, queue age), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 sentence of moderate length, conveying purpose and constraints efficiently. It is concise but could benefit from a brief structure (e.g., listing metrics) for easier scanning.

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 no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return contents (pending counts, busy ops, queue age) and the privacy aspect. However, it omits the format of the response (e.g., object structure), which is a minor completeness gap.

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?

There are no parameters, so per guidelines the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to add unnecessary detail.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: inspecting privacy-preserving aggregate bridge health metrics (pending command/response counts, busy operations, queue age). It distinctly separates this from sibling tools that focus on editing operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for health monitoring without returning personal data, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given its unique domain, the guidance is adequate but not exceptional.

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