Start the bridge plugin via OSC

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the exact OSC command and endpoint, the onPC menu settings that must already be enabled, and that the tool waits then pings the bridge. It omits failure behavior, timeout length, and idempotency, which is what keeps it short of a 5.

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 fallback condition is front-loaded and every sentence adds operational information. The nested parenthetical and doubled spacing around the plugin name make it slightly denser than it needs to be, but there is no 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?

For a zero-parameter recovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the mechanism and prerequisites well but leaves the agent guessing about what a call returns, how long the wait lasts, and what to do when the ping does not succeed.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description mentions GMA3_OSC_PORT, but only as an environment/configuration value that must match onPC's OSC line, not as an input the agent supplies.

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?

States a specific action (send the Plugin "gma3_mcp_bridge" command over OSC /cmd) and frames it precisely as a fallback for when the bridge is not running, which separates it from connection-oriented siblings like gma3_status or gma3_osc.

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?

Explicitly scopes use to the bridge-down case and names the prerequisites and verification siblings (gma3_osc shows the port, gma3_test_osc_input proves the input path). It never states what to do if the bridge is already running or if the ping fails, so the exclusion is implied rather than spelled out.

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