status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the namespace contents are volatile ('gone after a server restart or reload_api') and the call degrades gracefully when Inventor is busy or modal by reporting that state instead of hanging. It doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics or whether it blocks, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact clauses, each carrying distinct information: what is read, what is volatile, and the fallback when Inventor is busy. No filler and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and the one optional param is schema-documented. The description covers purpose, volatility, and busy-state behavior; only minor gaps remain (e.g. what the namespace 'age' reflects, whether the call is non-blocking).

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 single optional 'instance' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including the pointer to list_instances and the empty-string default). The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: connection status, active document info, and the execute_python namespace. The scope is clear without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like list_instances, list_documents, or call_status.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool to call before execute_python to see whether your namespace survived, but the description never says 'use this when' or names alternatives. The 'busy or showing a dialog' clause describes behavior, not a routing condition.

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