get_connection_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful non-obvious side effect: with auto_bootstrap=True it will open a workspace drawing in AutoCAD (a mutation of GUI state, implicitly the default since the schema shows default=true). However, it says nothing about failure behavior, timeouts, or whether checking is side-effect-free when bootstrap is False.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the whole check, followed by a compact Args block. No filler, and the most important information (what is being checked, and the exact host/port) comes first.

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-value documentation is correctly omitted, and the description covers all three status domains plus the bootstrap side effect. What remains thin is the diagnostic semantics — what a negative result looks like and whether the agent should retry.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter, and it does: it defines auto_bootstrap's condition ('if True and the live bridge is not yet connected') and its resulting action. The only gap is that it does not restate or clarify the default value of True that the schema declares.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and three concrete resources: the AutoCAD 2027 GUI process, the live TCP bridge at 127.0.0.1:9877, and AcCoreConsole status. That is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool, which are all drawing, query, or script-execution operations, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 purpose strongly implies the calling context (verify connectivity before issuing draw/send_command calls) and the auto_bootstrap arg hints at the 'bridge not yet connected' scenario, but the description never states when to call this versus proceeding directly to a sibling or when not to call it. Usage is inferable rather than specified.

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