查询桥状态

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the diagnostic contents and framing the tool as a first-stop failure investigation point, which is behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradictions found.

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?

One compact sentence lists all returned status fields, and a second short clause gives the diagnostic use case. Every element earns its place, and the key payload is front-loaded before the usage note.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates the return contents, states the tool's diagnostic role, and benefits from annotations covering safety. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. With schema coverage reported at 100% and an empty properties object, the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly adds nothing extraneous about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('返回') with a clear resource ('bridge 当前状态') and enumerates the exact fields returned: listening port, bridge status, MCP session readiness, in-flight request count, Origin whitelist, and write permission. This makes the tool instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like revoke_session or call_page_tool.

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 explicitly states when to reach for this tool: '工具调用失败时先查这里' (check here first when tool calls fail). It provides clear diagnostic context, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops slightly short of full when/when-not guidance.

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