sw_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (reachability check) but does not mention side effects, such as whether connecting may start the server or how reachability is determined. This is minimal but not misleading; gaps remain around semantics and potential side effects.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple: no parameters, and an output schema is present, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description sufficiently identifies the tool's function. A minor omission is lack of guidance on when to run the health check relative to other SolidWorks tools, but this is partially covered by usage guidelines.

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 description adds useful context by identifying the target ('local SolidWorks COM server'). With no parameters to explain, baseline is high and the description is sufficient.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Check') and a concrete resource ('the local SolidWorks COM server is reachable'). It clearly identifies this as a health/connectivity check and distinguishes it from the create/export/review sibling tools.

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 implies the tool is used to verify SolidWorks COM server availability before performing other operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention workflow placement or exclusions. The usage context is implied but not articulated.

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