get_bridge_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the returned contents but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it requires an active Blender connection, or whether it can be safely called mid-operation. The 'get' prefix implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not stated.

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 the field list and followed by direct usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter status getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what fields are returned and why an agent would call it. It could be slightly more complete by naming sibling tools like ping_blender or get_workspace_info as alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about what the status report covers, even though no parameters need explaining.

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 identifies the resource as bridge health and enumerates the exact fields returned (version, host/port, scene name, open .blend path, workspace directories, command counters, last error). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' but the resource is unambiguous and the field list helps distinguish it from siblings like ping_blender or get_workspace_info.

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 says when to use the tool: 'diagnose connection problems' or 'find out where previews, checkpoints and exports are written.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the contexts are clear enough for an agent to choose this over a simple ping.

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