burp_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects (e.g., 'store statistics' could imply mutation). No mention of auth, rate limits, or what happens if bridge is down. Brief and lacks behavioral details.

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, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. No wasted words; 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 explain return values. Mentions 'store statistics' but doesn't describe format or contents. For a simple status check, this might be adequate, but lacks detail on what the response contains.

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?

Zero parameters, baseline is 4. Description adds nothing about params, but none exist, so it's sufficient.

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 it shows bridge connection status and stored statistics, and explicitly says to call first. Specific verb 'Show' and resource 'bridge connection status, store statistics' differentiate from sibling tools like burp_requests (list requests) or burp_issues (list issues).

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 'Call first to confirm bridge is running', which is clear guidance on when to use. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling context makes it obvious that this is the health check tool.

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