bridge_selftest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds what the self-test covers and that it returns per-check results. It does not state whether temporary objects from the object-creation check are cleaned up, but the read-only annotation covers the safety profile and there is no contradiction.

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 compact bilingual paragraphs with the core function first, then the usage trigger. No filler; the repetition between Chinese and English is small and does not hurt readability for an agent.

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 one-optional-param, read-only diagnostic tool, the description covers the checks performed, the return concept (per-check results), and the recommended use case. With no output schema, it could specify the result format more concretely, but the agent still has enough to invoke and interpret the tool.

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%: the single optional echoText parameter is already documented as verifying non-ASCII/Chinese encoding. The description mentions Chinese round trip in general but adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run a full in-Max self test') and enumerates the exact subsystems checked (JSON encode/decode, Chinese round trip, object creation, undo stack, TCP listener). This distinguishes it from status/ping/capability siblings even without naming them.

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 gives the trigger: 'Run it whenever a tool fails oddly' and explains the diagnostic payoff (tell environment problem from bad argument). It lacks an explicit 'do not use bridge_status/bridge_ping for this' exclusion, but the context is clear.

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