hcl_bridge_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral rule — that results must not be read as proof of GUI/CLI control — but says nothing about latency, failure modes, or what a failed probe implies.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing caveat is slightly cryptic in phrasing but it is not padding.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool whose whole job is reporting backend status, the description leaves the notion of "status" undefined and gives no operational context for interpreting a probe result beyond the one caveat.

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 and a fully empty schema mean there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-argument tool applies, with no parameter-level gap to compensate for.

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?

It names a verb ("probe") and resource ("local HCL backend"), so the general action is clear. But "status" is never unpacked, and among siblings like hcl_backend_capabilities, hcl_backend_topology and hcl_health_check the agent cannot tell what distinguishes this probe from those.

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 only guidance is a negative caveat ("never infer GUI or CLI control from it"), which is not a when-to-use rule. Nothing says when to call this versus hcl_backend_capabilities, hcl_health_check, or hcl_verify_connectivity, which occupy adjacent ground.

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