Probe Dev Studio Bridge

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the session-level contract, the 'call once before first bridge-dependent tool' rule, and the `live:false` failure shape with a reason field. This is meaningful supplementary detail rather than a restatement of annotations.

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 the return contract front-loaded and the usage rule immediately after. Every clause contributes either to what the tool returns or when to call it. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation data.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema status probe, the description fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly: it explains the return shape, the failure case, and the session-level usage policy. It even names the sibling operations that depend on a successful probe. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning the description needs to add. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return-value semantics instead. No parameter-related gap exists.

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 defines the tool as a bridge liveness probe by specifying the exact return shape: `{ live, port, pid, startedAt }` or `{ live: false, reason }`. It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools like `debugger_status` or `test_connection` by framing itself as a one-time precondition for bridge-dependent operations. It lacks an explicit verb phrase like 'checks whether', but the return contract makes the purpose 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 gives an explicit usage rule: call once per session before the first bridge-dependent tool. It also states when re-probing is unnecessary once `live=true`, and it names the affected direct operations such as keypress, launch_app, ecp_query, rale_command, and send_script_to_builder. This is strong, actionable guidance for an agent deciding when to invoke this tool.

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