status

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful state context: that the report includes lock status and whether a long operation is still running, which tells the agent this call can surface contended/busy conditions. It does not say whether the tool blocks or waits on a running operation, which is the one behavioral detail left open.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the routing instruction. The enumerated report fields (version, file, units, lock, running operation) partially duplicate the output schema, so it is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each item still helps an agent decide whether status answers its question.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description is not obliged to define return values, yet it still summarizes them for routing purposes. Combined with the explicit 'call this first' sequencing guidance and zero-parameter simplicity, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource (attachment state and contents of the CSiBridge session), which cleanly separates it from the sibling 'connect' (which attaches) and 'open_model' (which loads a file). An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 closing directive 'Call this first.' gives an explicit sequencing rule for the whole toolset, which is strong, actionable guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or conditions under which you would skip it, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

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