get_bridge_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the operation read-only and enumerates what is deliberately withheld (sample values, cursor values, token material) plus the absence of clinical interpretation. It stops short of describing refresh behavior, error conditions, or what the status actually contains.

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 dense sentence with the read-only nature and the redaction guarantees front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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-param, non-destructive status read with no output schema, the description covers the most important surprises (redactions, no clinical interpretation). The one gap is that, absent an output schema, it states only what is omitted and never what a status payload actually includes.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the absence of input.

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 the resource precisely as 'bridge and receiver sync status' and implies a read via 'Read-only'. It is distinguishable from most siblings (list_*, get_workouts, get_sleep_summary), but it never names or contrasts any sibling such as get_bridge_context_markdown, which is the closest analog.

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 phrase 'for local agents' hints at the intended caller but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. An agent must infer on its own why it would call this rather than get_bridge_context_markdown.

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