Rocky Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it explicitly discloses the absence of a side effect (never launches Rocky) and discloses the categories of information returned. It omits whether the call can block/hang while probing the installed application's reachability — a non-trivial behavioral detail for a status probe.

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?

One sentence of purpose, one sentence enumerating the returned facts, one sentence of usage rule — front-loaded and free of filler. The ordering rule is placed last but is short enough to be read in full.

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?

A parameterless read tool with an output schema needs little more than a purpose statement and a safety note, both of which are present. The remaining gap is disambiguation from rocky_simulation_status in a 25-tool family where 'status' appears twice.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly does not waste space re-describing an empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report the status of the Rocky MCP session') and enumerates exactly what the report contains: backend, Ansys Rocky installation/reachability, detected versions, open project, simulation state. It is clear about what it does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling rocky_simulation_status, which also appears to surface simulation state.

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?

'Use this first' gives an explicit ordering rule, and 'it is the only tool that never launches Rocky' is a concrete, actionable exclusion criterion that makes it safe to call at any time. It stops short of naming when to prefer rocky_simulation_status over this tool for simulation-state checks.

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