solidworks_connect

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the description is not expected to restate them. It does add the behavioral note that launch=true may start the application, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens if already attached, whether repeated calls are safe, or the nature of the destructive hint. Given annotations cover some context, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one efficient sentence with a semicolon separating the action and the return value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.

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?

While the output schema exists (and likely documents the app handle), the description lacks lifecycle context: no mention of when to release the connection, potential side effects of the destructive hint, or whether this is a persistent attachment. For a connection tool, this is incomplete but not severely so given the simple interface.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It explains 'launch' as potentially starting SOLIDWORKS, but says nothing about 'visible'. It also does not clarify what an 'app handle' means or how to use it. Partial coverage of one parameter out of two yields a marginal score.

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 action ('Attach to SOLIDWORKS 2025'), specifies the revision, and notes the return value ('app handle'). It distinguishes from siblings like solidworks_discover (which likely finds instances) and solidworks_release (which detaches), even though it doesn't name them.

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 usage (attach before performing operations) and hints at the launch parameter for starting the app, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, mention prerequisites, or warn against misuse. The guidance is minimal and inferential.

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