Get STAAD.Pro instance status

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, and the description reinforces this by describing a connection check. It adds useful behavioral context by stating return values (connection state, STAAD version, model path) and the dependency on list_instances for the alias. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, with three short blocks that front-load the purpose. 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, return values, and a cross-reference to list_instances. It is complete enough to guide selection and invocation without needing additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the instance parameter's origin (alias from list_instances) and when to omit it. It does not specify exact type constraints beyond the schema's anyOf, but for a single optional parameter this is sufficient semantic guidance.

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 uses 'Check the connection' to specify the action and resource, clearly identifying it as a status/inspection tool for a STAAD.Pro instance. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_instances by focusing on connection state, version, and model path rather than enumeration.

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?

It provides explicit context on parameter usage: pass the instance alias from list_instances, and omit it when only one instance is running. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or when to prefer other sibling tools, but the usage context is clear.

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