verify_setup

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns a checklist with three checks, explains that a red check on 'Active document' is normal if no part is open, and that a red check on 'SolidWorks connection' in live mode requires opening SW. Also mentions mock mode. No contradictions.

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 bilingual (Spanish then English) and includes a junior workflow, which adds context but makes it longer than necessary. It is front-loaded with purpose, but some redundancy exists (e.g., both Spanish and English versions of purpose). Adequate but not maximally concise.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description includes a sample return object covering the checklist structure and behavioral notes. It explains edge cases and mock mode. Could mention idempotency, but overall sufficiently complete for a diagnostic tool.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. No parameter information needed in description beyond what schema provides, and description does not add any.

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 is a diagnostic to verify MCP_CAD installation. It explicitly mentions checking server response, SolidWorks connection, and active document, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform modeling or manipulation tasks.

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 specifies when to use the tool: after installation or when something seems off. It provides a junior workflow example. No explicit when-not-to-use but given the tool's unique diagnostic purpose, the guidance is sufficient.

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