PyNet Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately explains what the tool returns (PIDs) and the filtering condition (active PyNet listener), but lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or behavior when no instances are found.

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?

The description consists of a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place, clearly conveying the tool's function without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration for a simple read operation.

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?

Given the low complexity (zero parameters, read-only operation) and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It appropriately identifies the domain-specific context (Navisworks/PyNet) and the specific return value type (PIDs) without needing to replicate detailed return structure documentation.

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 has zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description adds valuable context by explaining what data is being retrieved and why no input parameters are required (it lists all active instances), which helps the agent understand the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and clearly identifies the resource (PIDs) and scope (Navisworks instances with active PyNet listener). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like check_plugin_status by focusing on listener-specific instance enumeration, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., whether to use this before send_command), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and domain context.

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