Inspect the bridge file's location and size, and check which agent pairs are connected before relying on a channel.
The bridge file's location, size, and which agent pairs are actually talking. Use it to check a channel exists before relying on it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| history_with | No | Also dump recent history with this agent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the observational content it returns. However, it never states that it is read-only, whether auth/permissions are needed, or that history_with can dump substantial history data — notable behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 short sentences, return contents front-loaded before the usage hint, with zero filler. Nothing is wasted.
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 no-output-schema read tool with no annotations, the description usefully explains what comes back and one use case. But it leaves limit unexplained and omits any behavioral/error context, so an agent can call it only approximately.
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?
Schema coverage is only 50% (history_with is documented in the schema, limit is a bare number with no description). The description adds no meaning for either parameter and never addresses what limit controls, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half.
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 names the concrete outputs (bridge file location, size, active agent pairs), so an agent knows this is a status/diagnostic read against the bridge. It is clear on its own but never differentiates itself from bridge_send or bridge_inbox by name, which a 5 would require.
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 an explicit triggering condition: 'check a channel exists before relying on it.' That tells the agent when to reach for it, but offers no exclusions or named alternatives for the adjacent bridge send/inbox tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.