pro_operations

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations by explaining it works 'without calling COM', i.e. it remains usable when the CAD connection is stuck — precisely the state where it is needed. It does not say how far back 'recent' reaches or what the listing contains.

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, the capability first and the trigger second, with no filler. Every clause carries 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?

For a parameterless, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is close to sufficient: the agent knows what it does, when to reach for it, and why it is preferable to a COM-backed call. A brief note on what an operation identifier looks like so it can be passed to pro_result would close the remaining gap.

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 empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('List running/recent operations') and adds a distinguishing technical note ('without calling COM'), which separates it from other pro_* status/result tools. The term 'operations' is not defined (presumably prior tool invocations), so an agent must infer the object being listed.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use after timeout or cancellation.' That is a clear situational cue. It stops short of naming the natural companion tool (pro_result) for retrieving a completed operation's output, so the follow-up path is left implicit.

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