bridge_status

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

The description reports the output fields but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of indicating that this is a read-only status check, which it fails to do explicitly. It also does not clarify if any permissions are required beyond reporting them.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It is concise, with no fluff or redundant details, and each word contributes to understanding the tool's function and output.

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 provides enough context for a status-check tool: it names the outputs (game found, mod version, permissions, round-trip time) and the overall purpose. Since there is no output schema, specifying the return fields is sufficient. It lacks a note on typical use cases, but for a simple status tool, this is adequate.

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 has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given there are none. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: checking whether a UE4SS game is running and the UEBridge mod is answering. It also enumerates the reported fields, making the tool's function unambiguous. However, it could be slightly more direct by starting with 'Checks' or 'Reports status', but it is still clear.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_object or world_info. The description does not mention conditions or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer that this is a preliminary health check. This is a notable gap given the sibling tools.

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