bridge_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the command list reflects what is 'actually registered on the 3ds Max side' and that results are 'grouped by prefix,' which implies a dynamic, version-specific inventory.

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 short, front-loads the primary action, and immediately follows with the key usage instruction in bold. The bilingual repetition is justified for a multilingual agent context and does not add unnecessary detail.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description only needs to convey what the tool does, how output is organized, and when to use it. All three are addressed clearly, making the definition complete and self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the input schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to explain. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not introduce any confusing or conflicting parameter expectations.

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 uses specific verbs ('List every command actually registered... grouped by prefix') and a clear resource, making it obvious this is an introspection tool for the available command set. It distinguishes itself from sibling bridge_* tools by focusing on command registration rather than connection status or ping.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: 'Call it first whenever you are unsure whether a tool exists on this Max version.' This is a clear, actionable precedence rule that prevents guessing and directly supports tool selection.

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