check_bridge_health

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: never throws, returns a structured object on success with status, connected flag, clientCount, latencyMs, uptimeSeconds, port, and error string. Explains latency measurement and clientCount meaning. Error behavior is explicitly documented.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: first line conveys core purpose, followed by prerequisites, success return, error behavior, and use cases. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains the return shape in detail, error behavior, use cases, and prerequisite context. No gaps remain.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no param-specific info because there are none, but it implicitly clarifies that no inputs are needed. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to check the health and connection state of the Figma WebSocket bridge server. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as a diagnostic first step before other Figma-dependent tools like pull_design_system or capture_screenshot.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: as the first diagnostic step before calling any Figma-dependent tool, after running `memi connect`, or to detect stale connections. It also notes prerequisites (none) and that it works even without a plugin connection.

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