bridge-status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The word 'check' plus latency measurement conveys a diagnostic, non-mutating operation, but the description never says whether an unreachable bridge raises an error or returns a status value, nor whether it is cheap enough to poll — critical details for an agent deciding whether to gate other calls on it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; both the reachability check and the latency measurement are stated up front.

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, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum sketch the return shape (reachable/not reachable, latency value) and failure behavior. It covers the what but leaves the result contract entirely unspecified.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 (check reachability) and two concrete targets (After Effects and the MCP Bridge panel), plus a secondary function (round-trip latency). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like render-status, which tracks render progress, though the description does not name that sibling to draw the contrast explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is a pre-flight connectivity check before calling run-script or start-render, but nothing states when to call it, whether to call it before every operation, or what to do if it fails.

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