Show remote chat mode status

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that it posts nothing, does not consume a pending reply, and answers from local daemon state without contacting the chat provider. This is valuable behavioral context not captured by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 dense yet concise, with three sentences each adding distinct value: output format, safety/diagnostics, and local-state nature. No fluff 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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (JSON with specific fields, null session), side effects (none), and context (local state, no provider contact). It is complete for the 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 100% and the schema already explains the session parameter thoroughly. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reports the bridge's record for the conversation as JSON, listing specific fields (adapter, thread, session active status). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with bridge_await and noting it is diagnostics-only.

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?

It explicitly says when to use: 'Diagnostics only' and 'unlike bridge_await it is safe to call at any point, including while deciding whether a bridge_start is still needed.' This provides clear context and an alternative, making it easy to decide between tools.

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