list_contam_bridge_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It offers minimal behavioral context beyond 'concise list' and doesn't specify safety (read-only vs. destructive), error conditions for invalid sessionIds, or return format structure. The mention of 'active' session hints at state requirements but remains superficial.

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 single-sentence structure is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the usage intent. No words are wasted, though the density leaves room for parameter documentation that isn't present.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description partially compensates by specifying the return contains 'names and ids.' However, with zero parameter descriptions in the schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps in understanding the category filtering options and required session prerequisites.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately. While 'active ContamX bridge session' implicitly maps to the sessionId parameter, the category parameter (with 8 enum values) is completely undocumented in the description. The agent receives no guidance on what filtering by category entails or how to select valid values.

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 identifies the tool retrieves a 'concise list of names and ids' (specific resource) from 'an active ContamX bridge session' (scope). It effectively distinguishes this entity-listing function from sibling session management tools like get_contam_bridge_session by emphasizing the listing of available entities 'inside' a session.

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 uses an explicit usage trigger ('Use this when you want...') which provides clear selection guidance. However, it lacks negative constraints (when not to use), prerequisites beyond the implied 'active' session status, or references to sibling alternatives for different use cases.

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