fusion_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: it enumerates every returned field with meaning (including the consequential distinction between 'parametric' — where failed tools roll back — and 'direct'), documents the NOT_CONNECTED error prefix, and explains post-timeout semantics. That rollback note in particular is non-obvious behavior an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose and the 'call this first' directive, then a scannable bulleted return contract. The field list is somewhat long, but with no output schema it earns its place; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply both the return contract and failure modes — it does both, plus the design_type behavioral consequence. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the response with nothing else.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add one useful caveat about units ('tool inputs are still millimetres unless a tool takes an explicit units'), which is context rather than parameter semantics, but nothing is left undocumented.

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 ('Check that Fusion 360 and the FusionMCP add-in are reachable') and immediately marks its ordering role with 'call this first'. Among ~130 siblings, none is a connectivity/health probe, and the description makes that unique role unambiguous.

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?

Gives two explicit triggering conditions: call first (before other work) and call after a TIMEOUT from another tool before retrying, with the reason ('the timed-out operation may still be running in Fusion'). This is a genuine when-to-use rule rather than an implied one.

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