wait_for_bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the binding side effect, the lock on execute_cadwork_command, the checks involving get_document_info, and the exact conditions under which nothing is bound: timeout, multiple matches, foreign port/folder, or OPEN_MCP_CAD_EXPECT_DOC mismatch.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then moves from parameter meaning to binding conditions. It is dense but each sentence adds necessary operational detail; a slightly more structured layout would improve scanability.

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 stateful tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains when it is mandatory, what input forms are accepted, what is checked, what side effects occur, and when binding does not happen. It does not explicitly state the behavior when `timeout_s` elapses or what the success/failure response looks like, which leaves a small but real gap.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It substantially explains `dokument`: full path vs. filename and the folder-check implication. However, it does not explain `timeout_s` beyond its self-evident name and schema default, leaving one parameter semantically under-described.

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 states a specific verb and resource: wait until exactly ONE Cadwork instance has `dokument` open, verify it, and bind the session to it. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_connection_status and open_document by describing its unique wait-and-bind role.

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 explicitly positions itself as 'Schritt 3 des Datei-Bootstraps' and as mandatory before every model job after open_document, giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases where waiting/binding is not needed, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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