get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well for a status tool: it explains that the execute_python namespace ages and is lost after a server restart or reload_api, and that the tool reports when Inventor is busy or showing a dialog instead of a normal status. It does not explicitly state read-only safety, but 'Check' strongly implies it.

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 tightly constructed sentences front-load the main purpose and then add the execute_python namespace lifetime and busy-dialog behavior. Every clause contributes useful context without repetition.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers the key status areas and the busy-dialog edge case. The only notable gap is explicit routing guidance versus list_instances and connect, but overall the definition 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?

The only parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the reference to list_instances for choosing an instance. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resources returned: connection status, active document info, and the execute_python namespace. It clearly distinguishes itself from execution or modification tools, though it does not explicitly separate itself from list_instances or connect.

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?

Usage is implied by the diagnostic nature of the tool, but the description does not state when to call get_status instead of list_instances or connect. It mentions reload_api only as a cause of namespace loss, not as an alternative tool-selection condition.

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