bridge_status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that — error text of other processes is redacted to `error`, the entry with `pid` == `current_pid` is this server, and other processes' routes cannot be stopped from here. This is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs and cannot infer from the 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?

Front-loaded with the core scope statement, followed by two short, high-signal sentences. The middle enumeration of returned fields is dense and list-like, but each named field earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields returned per process and clarifying identity (`current_pid`) and the redaction behavior. Combined with the read-only note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 the schema carries no semantics and the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the returned shape (`outcome`, `throughput`, `average_throughput`, `message_sequence`, `pending`, `started_at_ms`, `pid`), which adds meaning but sits outside the parameter dimension.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with clear scope: reports every mq-bridge process running for this user on this machine, explicitly enumerating CLI jobs, other MCP servers, the web UI and the desktop app. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_routes and route_status, which operate on routes rather than whole processes.

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?

Gives clear context for when this tool is the right one (cross-process inventory, including other MCP servers) and states a key exclusion: routes of other processes cannot be stopped from here, implicitly routing the agent to stop_route for its own routes. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling tools or spell out the when-not conditions.

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