fl_bridge_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden, and it does disclose a useful behavioral trait: the tool fails if the bridge is offline. However, it does not clarify what 'detailed info' includes, whether it is purely read-only, or how failures are surfaced.

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, tight sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Detailed info about the main bridge') and adds the critical failure condition in a brief parenthetical.

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 tool this is mostly adequate, but the lack of an output schema means the vague phrase 'detailed info' leaves the return shape undefined. The offline behavior is helpful context, but an agent cannot fully anticipate what fields or structure the response will contain.

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 zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so parameter explanation is unnecessary. The baseline of 4 applies since the description needs to add no parameter meaning.

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 a specific resource ('the main bridge') and states that it returns detailed info, which is enough to recognize it as a read/status tool. It does not explicitly contrast it with fl_ping or other diagnostic siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like fl_ping or fl_reconnect. The offline-failure note subtly implies a diagnostic use case, but the description never states when this tool should be preferred or excluded.

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