interchange_module_status

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, and the description goes beyond them by naming the exact engine APIs read (IsInterchangeImportEnabled, GetSupportedFormats) and warning that translator count cannot be queried because RegisteredTranslatorsClass is private in 5.8, explaining why 'enabled' is a derived substitute. This is genuinely useful context about what the tool does and does not report.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body carries implementation trivia (header filenames, INTERCHANGEENGINE_API, class privacy in 5.8) that contributes little to tool selection and lengthens the definition. The trailing Returns block is justified since no output schema exists.

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 diagnostic with no output schema, the inline Returns list fully specifies the response shape, and the derived-'enabled' explanation closes the main ambiguity. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., editor-context prerequisites), so it is nearly complete.

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 also enumerates the returned keys, which is helpful given the empty input schema, though that benefit belongs more to completeness than to parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Report Interchange framework availability') and enumerates exactly which framework facts are counted, which separates it from per-format siblings like interchange_get_supported_formats. It never explicitly names a sibling tool it replaces, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when an agent should call this versus the adjacent interchange_* tools or usd_module_status. The only usage-adjacent sentence is an internal rationale ('carries the same operational signal') for how 'enabled' is derived, which does not tell the caller when to reach for this tool.

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