cad_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that it inspects local installation/workspace state, which is useful, but it says nothing about cost, latency, or how results are reported—and it omits any hint that a slower exhaustive probe mode exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is efficient, though its terseness is partly the reason guidance and behavior details are absent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only annotations carry the risk profile. Still, for a preflight diagnostic tool the description leaves out when to call it and what a 'deep' run costs, which an agent needs to invoke it 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?

One parameter ('request' wrapping 'deep') with 0% reported description coverage, yet the description never explains what deep probing changes or when to request it. The nested schema carries a short note about probing tools and the sandbox, so the description adds essentially nothing beyond structured fields.

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 ('Check') and names the concrete resources inspected: OSS CAD Suite installation, workspace, and tool capabilities. It reads clearly as a diagnostic/status tool distinct from action siblings like cad_synthesize or cad_simulate, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to run this before a build, after installing the suite, or when another tool fails. It also gives no conditions under which the result should be ignored or re-run, so the agent must infer the diagnostic role from the name alone.

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