Verificar conexao

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it checks API responsiveness, which is useful context, but it does not disclose the return format (e.g., boolean, status code) or any potential side effects beyond that. Given the annotations, the description provides adequate but minimal additional behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately follows with usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or padding.

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 health-check tool with no parameters, the description covers purpose and usage. However, since there is no output schema, the description should ideally mention what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean or status indicator). That information is missing, leaving a minor gap for an agent that needs to interpret the result. Overall, the description is adequate but not fully 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (coverage 100%). Per the baseline rule for zero parameters, the score is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters since there are none, and it does not introduce any conflicting parameter information.

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 states a specific verb 'Verifica' (verifies) and a specific resource 'a REST API local do Solibri esta respondendo' (the local Solibri REST API is responding). It clearly differentiates this health-check tool from the other Solibri tools by focusing on connectivity, which is distinct from status, model, or export operations.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use antes das demais ferramentas quando nao souber se o Solibri esta aberto' (Use before the other tools when you don't know if Solibri is open). This provides a clear condition and ordering, leaving no ambiguity about when it should be invoked.

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