Inventor session status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the COM transport dependency and the exact return payload (version, active document, all open documents with path, type and unsaved flag), which tells the agent this call can fail if Inventor is not running.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the purpose plus the invocation instruction ('Call this first') are front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so fully. For a zero-parameter status/discovery tool with rich annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description instead usefully frames the output as the source of identifiers for other tools.

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 and resource ('Checks that Autodesk Inventor is running and reachable over COM') and then enumerates exactly what it returns. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools (model_info, smallest_faces, face_neighbors, unwrap_try, script), which are all geometry/scripting operations rather than session discovery.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Call this first to get the document names the other tools accept,' which establishes ordering relative to the siblings. It does not name a specific alternative or state a when-not condition, but for a prerequisite/discovery tool that is a minor omission.

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