BridgeHello

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior context: it returns the identity used by every state-changing operation, and 'ok' is false for a legacy bridge lacking atomic stale-session protection. It does not explain the refresh parameter's behavior.

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, then the routing guidance, then the identity/ok caveat. Mostly tight, though the three-paragraph layout is slightly heavier than the information requires.

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 read-only diagnostic with no output schema and a single param, the description is nearly adequate: it explains the identity semantics and the ok field. However, it leaves the only parameter unexplained, which is the main completeness gap.

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?

One optional parameter (refresh, boolean, default true) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The schema gives only type and default, so the agent has no idea what refresh actually toggles or when to set it.

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 and resource: 'Return the authoritative debugger bridge and debug-session identity.' It further pins down scope by naming a sibling ('call InitDebuggee directly instead') so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Diagnostic only for a debugger that is already running') and when-not ('When a target EXE path is known, call InitDebuggee directly'). It also warns against a specific misuse: using this as a preflight check.

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