get_document_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the delegation mechanism (TCP bridge to McpBridge plugin) and labels the call as a harmless status check, implicitly suggesting read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., no document open, bridge not connected), authentication needs, or side effects beyond reading. The description is informative but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 exactly two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary function front-loaded, and the second adds a usage hint and implementation detail without redundancy. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or over-explanation.

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 tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and expected outputs. However, it omits critical context such as the need for an open document, the dependency on a connected bridge (especially given the sibling wait_for_bridge tool), and any error states. An agent could call this too early and get a failure, which a more complete description would warn against.

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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously complete). There are no parameters to document, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it properly focuses on the tool's outputs instead.

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 a clear verb ('Liefert' = provides) and a specific resource (information about the currently open document in Cadwork). It names concrete outputs — document name and number of identifiable elements — which distinguishes it from generic 'get' tools like get_connection_status or get_detail. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is 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 phrase 'Schneller Status-Check' (quick status check) implies a lightweight, informational use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_connection_status or get_detail. No prerequisites (e.g., must have an open document, bridge must be connected) or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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