État du bridge Quantower

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds substantial context beyond that: it reports platform version, server mode (read_only or trading), and active connections — behaviors and return content not derivable from the annotation. It also hints at the diagnostic role first-call ordering.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result list, followed by the usage directive. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully describes what the tool returns (version, mode, connections) and when to call it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required; no further parameter semantics are needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Vérifie que... répond'), the resource (QuantowerMcpBridge), and enumerates the exact outputs: platform version, MCP server mode (read_only or trading), and active connections. This distinguishes it from siblings like quantower_list_connections, which lists a single resource, whereas this tool is a diagnostic bridge check.

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?

It explicitly says 'À appeler en premier pour diagnostiquer un problème de connexion' — telling the agent exactly when to use this tool (first, for connection troubleshooting). No alternatives are named, but for a diagnostic entry point that isn't needed.

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