get_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 of disclosing behavior. 'Track the status' implies a read-only operation but does not describe what 'status' means (e.g., pending, completed, failed), what the response format is, or how errors are handled. Given the absence of an output schema, this is insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Track the status of a bridge transaction.' It is concise and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated.

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?

This is a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description fails to explain what status information is returned, which bridge protocols are supported, or how to interpret the response. It is too minimal to be fully actionable for an agent without prior knowledge.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a useful description (e.g., 'Bridge protocol used', 'Source chain transaction hash', and network examples for 'sourceChain'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already provides adequate semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'track' and the resource 'bridge transaction' with 'status', which is specific enough for basic understanding. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'rubic_get_bridge_status' or other bridge-related tools, and the scope of 'bridge transaction' is somewhat broad without specifying supported protocols.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rubic_get_bridge_status', 'get_bridge_quote', or 'estimate_bridge_time'. No prerequisites or context are mentioned (e.g., that the transaction must be initiated first). The existence of many similar siblings makes this lack of direction a significant gap.

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