run-bridge-test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for transparency. It does disclose that the tool 'applies test effects', indicating side effects, but it does not explain what those effects are, whether they are destructive, reversible, or impact the current project. The behavior beyond 'verify communication' is vague, leaving the agent uncertain about possible outcomes.

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, compact sentence that directly conveys the tool's function without any filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action ('Run') and the resource ('bridge test effects script'), earning high marks for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole context. It provides the basic purpose but leaves gaps about the nature of 'test effects' and the expected outcome. While it is minimally viable, an agent might struggle to predict the tool's impact on the environment, so the description could be more detailed.

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 is empty, meaning there are no parameters. The description correctly makes no mention of parameters, and because there are none, there is no semantic gap. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 a specific action ('Run the bridge test effects script') and its dual purpose ('verify communication and apply test effects'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'run-script' (generic script runner) and 'check-bridge' (only checks communication), making the tool's role 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or that it should be used before/after other operations. The purpose implies a testing scenario, but the description fails to explicitly state this context.

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