cad_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds the concrete scope of what is inspected (bridge, document, version, drawing state), which is useful, but no return format, cost, or freshness details given there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a specific verb and a coherent list of inspected items. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 zero-param read-only status tool with full annotation coverage, the description is close to complete, but with no output schema it should say something about what the check returns (e.g., connection state, version string, drawing name) so the agent knows whether the result answers its question. As written the enumerated items imply returns but don't confirm them.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing to describe and nothing misleading; the description appropriately spends its budget on scope rather than params.

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 ('Check') and enumerates the resources checked: bridge, active document, product version, drawing state. This is clear and specific. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like cad_instances or cad_capabilities, which could also report on the connection/product, but the enumerated scope is distinctive enough.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With zero parameters and a read-only status role, usage is somewhat implied (health/state check), but the agent gets no routing help against siblings like cad_capabilities for 'what can this product do' questions. Implied usage only.

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