native_integrity_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces the read-only, no-side-effects behavior. It adds useful context about what is being verified (bridge liveness, optimistic lock state, persistent document PID, semantic fingerprint), though it does not elaborate on failure modes or result semantics beyond the output schema.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then adds side-effect and disambiguation notes. Every sentence carries useful routing or safety information.

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?

Given the zero-parameter schema, existing output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description supplies enough context to identify the tool, understand its safety profile, and route between it and system_status. No essential invocation detail is missing.

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 parameter semantics are not a meaningful differentiator. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description needs to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 inspect action over a clearly named resource: the same-session managed native bridge and active AutoCAD document binding, including PID and semantic fingerprint. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools, especially system_status, which is named in the disambiguation.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool to verify native C# bridge liveness and optimistic lock state, and directs overall provider status checks to system_status. This gives a concrete use case and an alternative rather than leaving routing to inference.

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