get_bridge_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the empty schema by stating it's a 'Public catalog — no credentials needed,' and enumerates the output fields. It could mention read-only semantics explicitly, but 'List' and catalog nature imply a safe read operation.

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 main action, followed by justification and usage. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (chains, assets, decimals, minimums, confirmations, fees) and notes public access without credentials. It's complete for a catalog-like endpoint with no input parameters.

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 schema provides no information. The description adds no parameter semantics (unnecessary) but establishes the purpose of discovering chain values, which is parameter-adjacent. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, 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 clearly states the tool lists bridgeable chains and per-chain asset details (depositable/withdrawable, decimals, min amounts, confirmations, fees). It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself by noting it's a public catalog and a discovery mechanism for chain values used by other bridge tools, setting it apart from siblings.

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 to 'Use it to discover valid `chain` values for the other bridge tools,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. While it doesn't enumerate alternatives, the reference to 'other bridge tools' implies its consultative role, which is sufficient for a discovery tool.

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