sw_status

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

Read-only, non-destructive behavior is already declared by annotations, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real content by disclosing the diagnostic payload, including a kernel-broken warning the agent would otherwise not anticipate. It does not say what happens when SolidWorks is absent (error vs. a false field), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 short fragments with zero redundancy: the payload enumeration followed by the imperative. Every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking it.

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 must convey return content, and it names four concrete result categories plus a failure signal—enough to call the tool and interpret the basics. What the fields look like when SolidWorks is not installed remains unspecified.

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 for a 0-param tool applies. No parameter language is needed or missing.

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 precisely what the tool reports—install/running state, release, open documents, and a geometry-kernel warning—which is far more specific than the bare name 'sw_status'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as sw_health or sw_connect, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

'Call this first' gives a clear, actionable ordering cue that most tool descriptions lack. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use sw_health for post-connect diagnostics'), so the when-not case is left implicit.

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