geometry_backend_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the three possible states (occt/occt-error/mock), that availability can be false, and that a 'reason' field accompanies failures. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect, but the diagnostic framing makes it clear.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the three enumerated return shapes, then the use case. Dense but every clause maps to distinct behavior; the return-shape list is justified since no output schema exists, though it is a single long sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating all three return shapes and their fields (backend, available, version, reason), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the result. Nothing material is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add or clarify beyond an empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and resource (current 3D geometry backend), and it is clearly distinguishable from the geometry-creation/import siblings. An agent can tell immediately this is a diagnostic probe, not a modeling operation.

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 gives the when: 'Use this to verify whether STEP/STL/IGES/GLTF tools are running on real OCCT or on stubbed geometry.' It names the downstream tools it informs but offers no explicit when-not or alternatives (e.g., dwg_tools_status is a sibling status tool it doesn't distinguish itself from).

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