is_bridge_connected

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only check ('Check'), describes the return format (project:<uuid>, harness:<uuid>), and explains how to interpret the results. No side effects or rate limits mentioned, but for a simple status query this is adequate.

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 sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second explains the output format and how to use it. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter status-check tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to apply the result. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states the namespace format and integration with sibling tools.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about the output and its usage, which compensates for the lack of parameters. No parameter explanation needed.

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's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('which browser tabs are connected via the WebSocket bridge'). It uniquely identifies this tool among siblings by focusing on bridge connectivity rather than project/harness operations.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining the return value (namespaces) and instructing to use it with execute_command/get_live_state to target a specific tab. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the tool's narrow purpose makes this sufficient.

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