bridge_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent (a read-only status report). The description adds value beyond the annotations by specifying the exact fields reported, which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction exists. It doesn't document error/edge behavior when the bridge is down, but for a status tool this is adequate.

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 well-structured: front-loaded field list followed by the 'call first' directive. The bilingual duplication (Chinese + English) adds length, but this appears to be a deliberate convention for the toolset, and both sentences earn their place. No wasted filler.

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 simple zero-parameter status tool, the description covers purpose, reported fields, and usage timing. No output schema exists, but the enumerated field list partially compensates. It would be marginally improved by noting behavior when the bridge is unreachable, but nothing critical is missing 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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty properties object). Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not explain parameter syntax. It correctly focuses on what the tool reports rather than inputs.

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 states a specific verb (报告/Report) and resource (live bridge state) and enumerates exactly which data points are returned: listening, port, connected clients, command count, Max version, current scene, object and selection counts. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like bridge_ping, bridge_selftest, and bridge_capabilities by listing its concrete fields.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first to confirm the connection is healthy' before starting any operation. This gives clear context for the agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'call first' directive is strong and actionable.

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