check_bridge_health

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: never throws, returns error object on failure, measures latency, and explains clientCount meaning. It also states the tool works without a plugin handshake, beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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?

Description is well-structured with labeled sections (Prerequisites, Returns, Error behavior, Use this tool) but is somewhat lengthy. Could be slightly more concise, but clarity is high. Earns its sentences.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape and error behavior, with concrete fields and values. It also provides context for its role in the tool ecosystem, making it complete for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so description doesn't need to add parameter info. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it provides no additional parameter semantics but also doesn't need to.

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 clearly states the tool checks health and connection state of the Figma WebSocket bridge server, with specific verb 'check' and resource identification. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pull_design_system by being a diagnostic step.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: as first diagnostic step before Figma-dependent tools, after `memi connect`, or to detect stale connections. Also notes prerequisites (none) and error behavior, helping the agent decide when to invoke.

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