get_bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It discloses the HTTP GET method (implying a read operation) and required identifiers, but does not mention potential errors, permissions, or response characteristics. Adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 only two sentences, highly scannable, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value: the HTTP endpoint, host variations, and bridge_id sourcing. No filler or repetition.

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 GET-by-id tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites (host and bridge_id) and their sources. It lacks explicit error semantics and pagination, but given the simplicity and output schema presence, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining host's three allowed formats and the exact provenance of bridge_id. Every parameter's meaning is enhanced beyond the raw schema, making this a model case for compensating a schema gap.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Get one bridge by id' with the HTTP endpoint, clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from list_bridges (fetching all) and update_bridge (modifying) without ambiguity.

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 guidance on where to obtain bridge_id ('Obtain it from list_bridges'), and explains acceptable host formats. Does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, but the singular resource retrieval use case is implied strongly.

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