bridge_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's informational content (permissions, capabilities, limits, branches, token config), implying a read-only status check. It does not explicitly state side effects or read-only nature, but for a status tool, this is sufficiently transparent.

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 a compact two-sentence structure. The first sentence enumerates the tool's outputs in a clear list, and the second adds crucial usage context. Every word contributes, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers its content and appropriate usage scenarios. It could be more complete by explicitly stating it is read-only, but the listed items already imply that, and the guidance covers the main contexts.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly explains what the tool returns without needing to explain any 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 clearly identifies the tool as a bridge status/configuration inspector, specifying in detail what it reports: permission level, enabled capabilities, allowed executables, timeouts, output limits, protected branches, and token configuration. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on workspace, files, Git operations, or commands.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Check this when a tool is refused, or before planning work that needs to push.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the two scenarios are clear and practical for decision-making.

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