get_connection_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the call responds even during long drawing operations, does not use the job queue, and can distinguish a still-running job from a paused connection or a hung main thread. This is meaningful operational context beyond the tool name.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then the key use case, then the returned fields. Each sentence adds information, and the structured list of state values is compact and useful rather than padded.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, this description is complete: it explains when to invoke it, what it does, what it reports, and how to interpret the outcome. The field list and state enum give the agent everything needed to call and consume the result appropriately.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description cannot add parameter meaning, but instead uses the space to document the output fields and state enum, which is appropriate for a parameterless 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 states the tool reports the state of the Open-MCP-CAD connection to Cadwork, and goes beyond a tautology by enumerating the returned data (instance, port, PID, document, state, queue, write license, last error). It also distinguishes itself from execute_cadwork_command by explicitly positioning this as the diagnostic call for timeouts.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Genau dafür gedacht, wenn execute_cadwork_command in ein Timeout gelaufen ist' tells the agent exactly when to call it. It also states the action to take based on the result ('dann warten, NICHT wiederholen') and clarifies that this query bypasses the plugin job queue, so it is usable while Cadwork is busy.

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