Rodar checking

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it mentions 'executa' (executes) and 'retorna os resultados' (returns results), but does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether it modifies project state, requires a model to be open, or has rate limits). Given the annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description offers only modest extra value.

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 sentences with zero filler. The purpose and the differentiating guidance are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. Ideal length for the tool's simplicity.

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 description conditions usage on pre-loaded rulesets and an open Solibri, which covers prerequisites. However, with no output schema, 'retorna os resultados' is vague—it doesn't specify the format (list, report, status), error handling, or what happens if no rulesets are loaded. For a tool that returns substantial data, this is a notable 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 schema has 100% coverage for the single optional boolean parameter 'checkSelected' with its own Portuguese description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, but the schema already fully documents it, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a specific action ('Executa o checking') on a clearly identified resource ('rulesets ja carregados no Solibri aberto') and explicitly says it returns results. It also distinguishes itself from the alternative tool (solibri_autorun_start) by the loading condition, making it easy for an agent to pick the right one.

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 an explicit condition for use ('com os rulesets ja carregados') and a direct alternative for a different scenario ('Para rodar um ruleset a partir de arquivos, use solibri_autorun_start'). This is a clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance that fully disambiguates from the sibling.

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