rupa_cad_status

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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the kernel cold-start latency and noting that subsequent CAD calls are effectively free.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core purpose first and then the invocation guidance. Every sentence earns its place and no unnecessary details are included.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the two expected outputs: kernel on/off status and shapes present in the workspace. It is adequate for an optional-parameter read-only status tool, though it does not describe the exact return structure.

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 100%, and the ruang parameter is already documented as the workspace name with its own adegan.blend. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond referring to 'this space', so it does not meaningfully improve on the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a status/initialization check for the OCCT b-rep kernel, reporting whether it is on and which shapes exist in the workspace. It distinguishes itself from general tools like rupa_status by scoping to rupa_cad_* usage and naming the kernel explicitly.

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 an explicit invocation rule: call once before using any other rupa_cad_* tool. It also provides the reason, the ~0.4s cold-start cost and free subsequent use, which helps an agent decide when this tool is required.

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