get_supported_bridges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list' and does not explain the return structure of 'capabilities', filter semantics (AND/OR), pagination, or any authentication needs. This leaves significant ambiguity for a read-only tool.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is straightforward, but the description lacks details about what 'capabilities' means or the format of the returned list. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify return value structure. The purpose is clear, but an agent may still be unsure what to expect.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Filter by destination chain support' and 'Filter by source chain support'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter context, but it doesn't need to beyond the baseline.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('supported bridge protocols and their capabilities'). It is specific and concise, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like defi_get_bridges, which could also be interpreted as bridge-related list operations.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as defi_get_bridges or rubic_get_supported_chains. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or whether it should be used before bridge quotes.

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