Server Status

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds a brief note on what is returned but does not disclose details like latency, failure modes, or what 'full status' means operationally (e.g., what happens if backend is unreachable). With readOnlyHint covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a concise list of return categories. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 parameterless status/health tool, the description covers the core purpose and return categories. An output schema exists, explaining return values. It could additionally clarify how this differs from system_capabilities and system_about, but that gap is minor given the simple scope. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% (vacuous). There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description sensibly focuses on return values instead. For a no-parameter tool, the description provides enough guidance on what the call will yield.

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 clearly states 'Get full status of the AutoCAD MCP Pro server and backend connection' with a specific verb and resource, and then enumerates the returns: backend name, connection status, capabilities, document info. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like system_capabilities and system_about by focusing on status and connection details, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 this is the go-to health/status check tool, and the context of sibling tools like system_capabilities and drawing_info provides some differentiation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, such as when system_capabilities would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the title and description.

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