List running STAAD.Pro instances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the alias stability across the server session, the version warning condition for versions below 25.0.1, and the specific fields returned. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact at three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second covers output fields and usage, and the third handles an edge case warning. Information is front-loaded and no fluff 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?

With no parameters, a simple output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects. It explains when to use the tool, what it returns, and the version-notice edge case. The existence of an output schema means the description needn't enumerate return fields in detail, making this sufficiently 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 has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description's silence on parameters is appropriate. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add any 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 'List all running STAAD.Pro instances,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like execute_code by specifying that it returns instance details such as alias, process ID, open file path, and version.

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 an explicit usage directive: 'Call this before execute_code when multiple STAAD instances may be running so you can pick the right one.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and why, while implicitly excluding other contexts. It also explains that the alias is stable, which is critical for subsequent tool calls.

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