Check AutoCAD plug-in

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the specific context of a 'read-only local named-pipe command,' which conveys a local IPC mechanism and implies that the plugin must be present for the check to succeed. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes the key mechanism, making every word valuable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema present, rich annotations), the description covers the essential context. It could note the dependency on the plugin being installed/running, but the phrase 'installed plug-in' plus the named-pipe mention partially implies this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 sole parameter timeout_ms has full schema coverage with a clear description ('Bounded local plug-in request timeout in milliseconds'). The tool description adds little beyond this, but the schema alone is sufficient for understanding the parameter, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check the installed AutoCAD plug-in' via a specific mechanism ('read-only local named-pipe command'). It uses a specific verb+resource pairing and is distinct from sibling tools like get_publish_job_status, which are about publish 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 implies usage for checking the plugin status but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use this tool or how it compares to other tools, leaving usage context to be inferred.

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