get_bridge_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses side effects ('opens a loopback connection and performs one read-only session query'), implying a safe read operation, and flags an edge case (WSL NAT failures with a Windows-Python launcher hint). It omits anything about latency or failure semantics beyond the edge case.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by labeled 'Side effects', 'Example', and 'Edge cases' lines — every sentence earns its place with no padding. The labeled structure is compact and scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. For a zero-parameter diagnostic probe, purpose, side effects, and one edge case are sufficient to invoke it correctly; only alternative-routing guidance is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema-side burden is nil and the baseline is 4. The example call 'get_bridge_status()' confirms the no-argument invocation.

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 verb and resource — 'Probe the Live bridge' — and frames the goal as explaining connection failures, which is distinct from the session-data siblings like get_session_overview. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the diagnostic intent is unambiguous.

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?

Implies usage ('explain environment-specific connection failures', 'distinguishes MCP discovery from Live availability') but never states when to reach for it versus alternatives, nor any explicit when-not condition. Adequate but leaves the trigger context to inference.

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