easyeda_bridge_status

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'check', implying a read-only operation, but does not state side effects, required permissions, or whether it could fail or time out. No information about the output or what 'status' means is provided.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and targets, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the check returns or what status details are provided. It only says 'check', leaving the agent without expectations of the result format (e.g., boolean, details object). This is inadequate for a status-checking 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 has 0 parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not add unnecessary information.

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 '检查 EasyEDA API Bridge 和当前连接的嘉立创EDA窗口' uses a specific verb (check) and names two concrete resources: the API Bridge and the currently connected JLC EDA window. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like easyeda_api_call or easyeda_select_window, which perform different actions.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no context about typical scenarios (e.g., diagnostics before calling other APIs) or when not to use it. The agent must infer its purpose from the name and minimal description.

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