freecad_selftest

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. Calling it a "short script" implies cheap/fast execution and it is implicitly a self-check, but it does not say whether running it mutates the document, creates test artifacts, or requires an active FreeCAD session — meaningful gaps for a code-executing tool.

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 sentences, no filler, with the action stated first and the usage condition second. Every sentence earns its place.

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-argument diagnostic tool with an output schema documenting results, the description covers what it does and when to invoke it. The only real omission is whether it has side effects on the current document.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter claims are made or needed.

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 action (run a short script that exercises the main awcad helpers), which is clearly a diagnostic/verification operation rather than a file execution. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, freecad_status, which is also a health-style check, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

"Use após instalar para confirmar que tudo funciona" gives an explicit trigger condition (post-install verification). There is no guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for ongoing status checks, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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