herdr_bridge_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'This is read-only', which is the key behavioral trait. It also implies it is safe to call at startup. However, it doesn't disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or expected output format. For a read-only status tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with relevant information. The purpose is stated first, followed by the handshake context. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 the bridge status tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It specifies exactly what the tool reports (safety profile, protocol version, stable capabilities) and when it should be used (startup handshake). An agent can call it correctly without further information.

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, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none, which is appropriate.

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 ('Report') and resource ('bridge') with clear details on what is reported: safety profile, protocol version, and stable capabilities. It also identifies itself as a startup handshake, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with workers, panes, controllers, and agents.

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 specifies that this is the startup handshake for coordinators, giving clear situational context. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that an agent would know this is the initial status check for the bridge.

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