Get STAAD.Pro instance status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that the MCP server must be relaunched for allowed-directory changes to take effect, so a cached allowed_dirs list can silently look correct and must be refreshed by calling this tool again.

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 the core purpose, then parameter guidance, then return/refresh caveats — good ordering. The final sentence about the relaunch requirement is long but earns its place by preventing a stale-read mistake; slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, yet it still highlights the key fields (connection state, STAAD version, model path, allowed_dirs) and the refresh caveat. Given one optional param and full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single optional parameter. It fully explains it: it is an alias obtained from list_instances, used to target a specific instance, and should be omitted when only one instance is running — more than the schema's bare anyOf/null/default conveys.

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 and resource ('Check the connection to a STAAD.Pro instance') and clearly differentiates itself from siblings like list_instances and execute_code. An agent can tell at a glance this is a status/diagnostic call rather than a discovery or execution call.

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 describes when to pass the instance alias vs. omit it ('Omit it when only one instance is running') and when to re-call ('after the user reconfigures allowed directories'). It references list_instances as the source of the alias, though it does not frame an explicit 'use X instead of this' alternative.

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