Get STAAD.Pro instance status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no contradictory info. It discloses useful context about return values and the instance-selection behavior, going beyond the annotation's safety hint. It stops short of explaining error cases or connection failure behavior, but that is not critical for a status check.

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?

Three short sentences cover purpose, parameter usage, and return values. The information is front-loaded and there is no redundant or vague 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and the description covers the core actions, parameter handling, and output. The existing annotations plus description are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without further assumptions.

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 schema provides no description for the only parameter, but the description fully explains it: it is an alias from list_instances and can be omitted when only one instance runs. This completely compensates for the sparse schema.

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 the tool's action and scope: 'Check the connection to a STAAD.Pro instance.' It also specifies what the tool returns (connection state, STAAD version, model path), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_instances.

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 explicit usage instructions for the instance parameter: pass an alias from list_instances, or omit it when only one instance is running. This implies a workflow but does not explicitly contrast the tool with alternatives, leaving a minor gap.

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