Bridge & multi-session status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: it never runs Luau, never touches the game, degrades gracefully ('when the transport exposes them' for queue pressure), and points to tool-schema on failure. That is rich behavioral context rather than restating the hints.

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 with the core purpose and scope, and most sentences earn their place. The tail ('Phase: observe; cost=low; idempotency=read-only... Safety: read-only') largely duplicates the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, adding some redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return shape '{ session, active, bridgeLoad, clients }' and what each region contains. For a zero-param read diagnostic, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 baseline is 4 and the empty schema is consistent with the description's 'Signature: {}'.

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+resource: report bridge/session state as seen from this MCP session, without touching any game. It enumerates exactly what is reported (this session's id/label/selection, resolved active client, full client roster), which separates it cleanly from siblings like get-active-client, list-clients, and select-client.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context: debug multi-session routing, confirm two sessions point at different games, or check whether any client is connected at all. It does not name the sibling tools that are alternatives (e.g. get-active-client for a narrower view), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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