Estado atual

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by specifying exactly what state information is exposed: busy flag, open file, and ongoing operation status. It does not contradict the read-only annotation and provides useful context about the tool's observable behavior, though it does not cover potential error states or availability guarantees.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs the essential information (what it returns and the three specific aspects) with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately usable.

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 status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key dimensions an agent needs: it tells what state is inspected (busy, file, operation) and implies it is a safe, non-mutating query. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering read-only/open-world semantics, it is sufficiently 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?

This tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema is trivially complete. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.

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 'Retorna' and the resource 'estado do Solibri', and enumerates the specific items returned (busy status, open file, ongoing operation status). This distinguishes it from siblings like solibri_ping (connectivity) and solibri_autorun_status (autorun-specific state), giving an agent a precise idea of what this tool does.

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 implies usage context by listing the kind of information returned (busy, open file, operation status), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like solibri_autorun_status or solibri_ping. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, so an agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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