cad_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context by explaining what each target returns (e.g., health includes server version/uptime/tool count) and explicitly notes that logs_clear clears the in-memory buffer, aligning with the destructive hint. It does not contradict annotations, though it does not elaborate on side effects beyond logs_clear or error behavior, so it is not a 5.

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 well-structured with bullet points and a dedicated 'When not to use' paragraph, and the first sentence clearly summarizes the tool. The Chinese sentence repeats some of the English enumeration, adding slight redundancy, but overall the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 complex with seven target types, and the description covers all of them, explains their use cases, and provides alternatives. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. Minor gaps include not mentioning the default target (check) or error handling, but the schema covers defaults, so the description is 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each property and target variant described in detail. The description restates the targets and their purpose but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the calibration guidelines, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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: 'Query session, file, object, layer, health or logs status' and then enumerates each target with distinct semantics (check, file, object, layer, health, logs_get, logs_clear). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming cad_validate and cad_measure as alternatives for other concerns, making the tool's purpose very clear.

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?

Provides explicit 'When not to use' guidance that names alternatives (cad_validate for validation/aggregate stats, cad_measure for measurements) and clarifies that cad_status is for live session/server state. It also explains when to use each target variant, giving the agent clear decision criteria.

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