pro_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that it works without a CAD document open — but says nothing about what the report contains or how 'verification limits' are expressed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and ending with the precondition. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a read-only, zero-argument introspection call with full annotation coverage, the definition is close to sufficient. The residual gap is that 'tools' and 'verification limits' are undefined terms and there is no output schema, so an agent cannot predict the report's structure before calling.

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 and the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. This is the baseline 4 case for a no-argument tool.

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 names a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates the resources returned: versions, tools, units, and verification limits. That is clearer than a tautology and an agent can tell it is an environment-introspection tool rather than a modeling operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_status or pro_tool_help, which is why it stops short of a 5.

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 CAD required' implies a precondition and a usage context: call this when no document or model is loaded. However, it never states when to prefer this over the similar-sounding pro_tool_help or get_status siblings, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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