Status da verificacao

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the key behavioral nuance: the 'no jobId' behavior of listing all jobs in the session, which is not inferable from the schema alone. It does not disclose response format or error conditions, but given the safety profile is already in annotations, this is acceptable.

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 two short, information-dense sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior is stated in a parallel structure with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation logic (with and without jobId). It does not describe the response structure, but given the tool's simplicity and the openWorldHint, this is likely acceptable. The agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the jobId description explains its origin (returned by solibri_autorun_start). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the conditional behavior when jobId is absent, which is not explicitly in the schema. Since the description bridges the gap between 'optional parameter' and its runtime implications, it earns a 4.

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 clearly states the verb 'query' (Consulta) and the resource 'Autorun job status', and explicitly covers the no-jobId case (listing all jobs). This directly distinguishes it from the sibling tools solibri_autorun_start and solibri_autorun_cancel, which are mutations, so an agent can easily pick the right tool.

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 clear conditional guidance: when jobId is provided, query that job; when absent, list all jobs. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative status tools like solibri_status, but the 'sem jobId' clause effectively frames when to use this tool versus relying on other status mechanisms. The guidance is functional but not exhaustive.

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