system_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — that it answers without connecting to or launching AutoCAD and surfaces read_only status plus Plant 3D limitations. No rates/limits or output detail, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Short and front-loaded: what it does first, then WHEN TO USE, then the parameter note and example. The 'Parâmetros: nenhum' line duplicates structured data and is the one non-earning 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 an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a zero-argument capability-probe tool the description supplies what matters — non-connection behavior and the Plant 3D scope — leaving little an agent would still need.

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. The description restates 'Parâmetros: nenhum', which is redundant with the empty schema but not harmful.

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 (informs capabilities and restrictions) and adds the key scope qualifier that it does NOT connect to or start AutoCAD. That qualifier implicitly separates it from the connection-oriented sibling `status`, though the sibling is not named.

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?

Explicit 'QUANDO USAR: antes de escolher ferramentas' gives a clear use context, and it explains the selection rationale (distinguishing configuration from a real connection). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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