solidworks_job

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a non-blocking poll (not entering the COM queue) and warns that failed jobs may have partial effects. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects of the underlying job.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Poll job state/result') and then adds the key behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema (which presumably describes the result format), the description covers the essential operational details: it polls, it is non-blocking, and it warns about partial effects on failure. It does not mention polling frequency or timeout behavior, but for a simple status check, this is adequate. It could be improved by hinting at how to obtain job_id, but that is likely covered by job-creation tools.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the schema) and the description does not explain the job_id parameter beyond its name. The schema provides only type and title, which is minimal. Since this is a low-coverage case, the description should compensate, but it offers no guidance on what job_id is, how to obtain it, or its format. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 a specific action (poll) and resource (job state/result). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it operates 'without entering the busy COM queue', implying it is the non-blocking way to check job status, unlike other tools that may interact with the COM queue.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: to poll job state/result without blocking. It also warns about partial effects on failure. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the 'without entering the busy COM queue' phrasing implies a contrast with tools that do block, and the presence of solidworks_cancel_job suggests this is for status checks, not mutations.

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