install_bridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool copies files and does not execute the script, which is key behavioral information. It could mention more about overwrite behavior or error handling, but for a simple copy operation, this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The action ('copy') is front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies important caveats. Perfectly concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, its limitation (does not start the script), and provides follow-up guidance. There is no missing information for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters; baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the tool accomplishes without any inputs, making it clear it is a simple installation action.

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 copies a specific Lua file into REAPER Scripts folders. It uses a specific verb ('copy') and resource ('reaper_bridge.lua'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like run_reascript by noting it does not start the script.

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 explains what the tool does and what it does NOT do (does not start the script). It provides context on how to use the script afterward (via Actions list or startup). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like run_reascript, but the distinction is clear enough.

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