run-bridge-test

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

The description states it 'verify[ies] communication' and 'applies test effects' but lacks detail on potential side effects, destructiveness, or safety. With no annotations, the description should disclose more behavioral traits, such as whether it modifies state or is safe to run multiple times.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from slightly more context, but as is, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves questions unanswered (e.g., what is a bridge test? what effects are applied? is it reversible?). It covers the basic action but lacks completeness for an agent to understand full implications.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description appropriately adds no parameter information since none exist. According to guidelines, baseline score is 4 for 0 parameters.

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 runs a 'bridge test effects script' to verify communication and apply test effects. The verb 'Run' and specific resource distinguish it from sibling tools like 'run-script' which may run general scripts, but it could further clarify the unique purpose of bridge testing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply-effect' or 'run-script'. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or when-not-to-use instructions.

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