pix_get_bridge_status

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

Read-only and idempotent behavior is already encoded in annotations, and the description consistently adds that the tool returns availability plus build instructions. This clarifies expected behavior without contradicting the annotation safety profile.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing the key availability and build-instruction behavior.

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 simple read-only status tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the core behavior and build guidance. The main gap is the undocumented platform parameter, but it is optional with a default, so completeness is only mildly reduced.

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 schema has one optional 'platform' parameter with default 'windows' and 0% description coverage, but the tool description never mentions platform or allowed values. The agent must guess whether platform controls which bridge status is checked or how build instructions are customized.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('deep-analysis bridge availability'), and extends to build instructions. It clearly differs from siblings like pix_build_bridge, which would perform the build, and pix_get_server_status, which targets server-level 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?

The description implies the tool is for checking bridge availability and mentions how to build it, hinting at the related build tool. It does not explicitly say when to prefer pix_get_bridge_status over pix_build_bridge or other status tools, so routing is left to inference.

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