get_bridge_context_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure and does so well: read-only, redacted, and explicitly omits sample values, cursor values, token material, and clinical interpretation. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or response structure, but the safety profile is clearly stated.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that communicates the core operation, read-only status, output format, and redaction scope without wasted text.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it identifies the returned format and the sensitive data omitted. It could do slightly more to explain what the bridge context contains, but no critical invocation detail 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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4 when the schema is otherwise complete.

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 resource and result type: redacted Markdown bridge context. It also clarifies the read-only nature and sensitive exclusions, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_bridge_status.

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?

It gives a clear usage context for local agents/wiki and implies this is the tool for context retrieval rather than status or timeseries data. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives.

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