hermes_self_test

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds value by enumerating the specific test areas (host identity, auth, etc.), including 'write sandbox,' which implies non-destructive writes. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of 15 words efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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?

Given zero parameters, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides complete context. It clearly states what the self-test covers, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's functionality.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline of 4 is justified as no additional parameter info is required.

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 states the tool runs a 'local bridge self-test' covering specific areas: host identity, auth, read roots, write sandbox, sensitive path blocking. The verb 'run' is specific, and the resource is the self-test, which is distinct from sibling tools like hermes_list_files.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose implies it is for verifying the bridge setup, but there are no alternatives mentioned or exclusions. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate as the usage context is implied.

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