mc_wait_for_bridge

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only; doesn't require session control', explains port sweeping and verification logic. However, it doesn't fully detail what happens after connection (e.g., return value or state change), though it is implied.

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?

Concise and well-structured: first sentence states main action, then provides verification details, then usage guidelines. No filler, every sentence adds value.

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, so description should clarify return values. It mentions timeout causes but doesn't specify what the tool returns on success or failure. Given two parameters and simple wait, it's mostly complete but missing output specification.

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 covers both parameters fully. Description adds context for expectedVersion about overriding previous identity and switching instances, providing extra meaning beyond schema. Timeout is mentioned but without default.

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 blocks until a freshly launched client's DebugBridge answers then connects. It explicitly distinguishes from polling mc_connect and mentions alternatives, making purpose clear and distinctive.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this instead of polling mc_connect yourself' and provides context like after mc_quit_client + launch command, referring to a guide. Also mentions timeout causes, offering clear usage guidance.

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