Geometry Status

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

Annotations already declare this tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it returns 'connection' and 'active-design state', which are the key behavioral outputs. It does not contradict annotations, and the safety profile is already covered by structured data.

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 a single sentence of eight words. It is immediate, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant phrases or filler. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter status tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly names what the tool returns (connection and active-design state), and the output schema handles return-value details. No gaps in context are evident.

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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none, and it adds no conflicting information.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and names a distinct resource ('Geometry connection and active-design state'). It clearly indicates a status/read operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like geometry_list_bodies, and 'active-design state' is somewhat vague without further elaboration.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or when to prefer other geometry tools. The only implied usage is 'to get status', but no context or exclusions are provided.

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