bridge_self_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only or has side effects (e.g., does 'build' modify files?). It also does not describe output format, error behavior, or permissions needed.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with actions. Every word serves a purpose, but it could be slightly expanded for clarity without being verbose.

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 composite tool performing multiple checks, the description is incomplete. No output schema, no behavioral details, and no parameter explanation. It lacks information on what the tool returns, error handling, or how to interpret results.

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 sole parameter 'cwd' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain its purpose, though it is likely the working directory. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not provide any parameter details.

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 lists the specific actions (typecheck, build, Git status, tunnel health, terminal inventory) that the tool performs. It specifies the verb 'Run' and the resources, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from using individual sibling tools like git_status or tunnel_health separately.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus running the individual checks separately. The description does not provide any context about prerequisites, when this is appropriate, or when to prefer alternative tools.

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