solidworks_cam_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds a critical behavioral guarantee: 'never treats an installed library as a license.' This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying a specific non-behavior, increasing transparency about the tool's internal logic.

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 is extremely concise, consisting of two short clauses. Every word adds value: 'Report observed CAM connection state' conveys the core function, and 'never treats an installed library as a license' provides a meaningful boundary. There is no repetition, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a zero-parameter status tool, the description is contextually complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, what it does not do, and implies it is a read-only observation without side effects. The absence of parameters and output schema (though the context mentions an output schema, the description itself is sufficient) means no additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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, and the input schema is empty (100% coverage). There is no parameter information to explain. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate even without additional parameter descriptions. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to clarify.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Report observed CAM connection state.' It also explicitly states what it does not do ('never treats an installed library as a license'), which removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from potential license-related tools. The verb 'report' and the resource 'CAM connection state' are specific and 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?

The description implies a monitoring/status-check use case without explicitly naming alternative tools or scenarios. The statement 'never treats an installed library as a license' serves as a caution and clarifies a boundary, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like solidworks_cam_connect or solidworks_cam_workflow. Given the clear function, the usage context is mostly self-evident.

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