spaceclaim_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what is actually returned (backend version, working unit, open design), which goes slightly beyond annotations, but it omits behavior in the error case — whether it fails or returns a disconnected state when no session exists.

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?

A single short clause with no filler, and the most important item (connection state) is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the elliptical fragment style sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 an output schema present and zero parameters, the description need not explain return structure, so the remaining burden is small. Still, for a status/probe tool the key missing piece is when to call it (e.g., before running operations on a design), which leaves it only minimally viable.

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; the baseline of 4 applies. The listed fields act as an informal output preview even though a real output schema exists.

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 enumerates the four pieces of information reported (connection state, backend version, working unit, open design), which is more specific than a tautology, but it is a noun fragment with no verb — the agent must infer that the tool *reports* these. It is distinguishable from connect/disconnect siblings, but only by implication of the name rather than an explicit statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus spaceclaim_connect or spaceclaim_disconnect, no mention of ordering (e.g., call before other operations to verify a session), and no statement of what happens if the backend is not connected. Usage is only implied by the name.

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