bridge_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait that structured data lacks: it spins up a new owned STA process and never touches the user's live session, implying it is a safe, non-intrusive probe. However, it says nothing about permissions, side effects on Renga itself, latency, or what a failure looks like.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key behavioral constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than merely concise.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description is the only source of information about this tool — yet it never states what a 'probe' yields (installed version? reachable? healthy?) or how failures surface. For a status tool whose entire value is its return signal, this leaves a material gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to compensate for.

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 verb 'Probe' plus the resource 'installed Renga' signals a health/status check, but the description never says what is actually being checked or returned. It does not differentiate this from lookalike siblings such as bridge_capabilities, bridge_verify, or bridge_project_info, so an agent cannot confidently route to it.

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?

'Never attach to the user's session' is a behavioral constraint, not a usage rule; it says nothing about when to call this tool versus the many other bridge_* tools. No preconditions, no alternatives, no scenario is given.

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