bridge_status

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the tool aggregates messages across all channels rather than a single channel or a wait/ack mechanism, and frames it as a status-viewing tool.

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 two purposeful sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides brief utility. Every word contributes 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?

For a read-only status tool with one optional parameter, complete schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the core result, the scope, and the likely use case without needing to document return fields or side effects.

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 input schema covers the only parameter, per_channel, with a clear description and default. The tool description does not add much about parameter details, but the schema fully documents it, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Get the last N messages from ALL channels at once.' It clearly identifies the tool's unique aggregation behavior, distinguishing it from likely siblings like bridge_receive or bridge_channels that might target individual channels or channel metadata.

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 gives clear context: use this when you want a cross-channel snapshot, as suggested by 'full picture of what's happening across agents.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope 'ALL channels at once' alone is a strong routing signal against channel-specific tools.

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