creo_get_project_assembly_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: it targets only 'active' component instances, depends on the 'current expected' assembly, and uses the Pro/TOOLKIT API. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, scope, and output contents; the second confirms read-only behavior and API dependency. Every clause 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?

For a read-only getter with strong annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the target assembly and the data returned. It omits error/edge-case behavior and explicit alternatives, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone expected_assembly parameter. It does so by tying the parameter to the 'current expected Creo assembly' and clarifying that the tool returns component instances of that assembly. The remaining syntax details are already captured by the schema pattern.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Read' and a clear resource: 'the active component instances of the current expected Creo assembly.' It enumerates the returned data (feature IDs, model names, placement matrices, constraint types/references), making it distinct from sibling getters like creo_get_features or creo_get_dimensions.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: reading active component instances from the current expected assembly, and it explicitly flags the operation as read-only. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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