Bridge status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it performs cheap checks and never loads the model or runs inference. This tells the agent the call is lightweight and side-effect-free beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the reported checks and followed by the key operational constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With an output schema present, zero parameters, and rich annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains what is reported and notes the cheap, no-inference behavior, leaving return structure to the output schema.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reports bridge version, configured model, Ollama reachability/version, and installed-model status. It clearly distinguishes this as a status/diagnostic tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the only sibling tool, decide.

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 implies usage for cheap health/status checks by stating it 'performs only cheap checks' and 'never loads the model or runs inference.' However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of the sibling 'decide' or any other alternative.

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