list_bridges

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the operation is a GET request via a Fabric proxy, implying read-only behavior, but it does not mention pagination, result size limits, required permissions, or any potential side effects. Some useful context is provided, but significant gaps remain.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The core purpose is stated first, followed by the parameter clarification. Every sentence contributes valuable information.

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 list tool with one parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential information: what it does, the route, and parameter format. It lacks some peripheral context like pagination or approval requirements, but these are less critical for a read-only GET list operation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 the host parameter in detail: console name, ID, or composite ID in MAC:numericId format. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema, making it clear how to populate the required parameter.

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 clearly states the tool lists bridges on a Protect console, specifies the HTTP endpoint (GET /v1/bridges via Fabric proxy), and uses a distinct verb and resource. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_bridge (single bridge) and update_bridge (modify), even though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 usage context: use it to list bridges on a Protect console. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_bridge or update_bridge, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative routing. The intent is fairly clear from the name and GET method, but explicit guidance is missing.

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