get_anchors

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, auto-derivation rules, merging of explicit anchors with precedence, and coordinate frame (GLOBAL). It also details the return format with source field, offering comprehensive transparency beyond any structured metadata.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a concise explanation of behavior, and a separate 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds valuable information with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the purpose, behavior, derivation logic, coordinate system, precedence rules, and return format. It is self-sufficient and contextually complete even without annotations or an output schema.

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 input schema provides no description for doc_name and obj_name (0% coverage), and the description only indirectly indicates that obj_name refers to an object with a Shape and doc_name is the document. It adds context about anchors being derived from the Shape, but doesn't explicitly define the parameters, leaving some ambiguity.

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 states the tool 'List an object's assembly anchors in GLOBAL coordinates (read-only)' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like set_anchors by emphasizing read-only behavior and describing auto-derivation and merging logic.

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 instruction 'Call this BEFORE placing parts and plan mates from the returned numbers — never guess coordinates' provides explicit when-to-use context. It doesn't name alternatives directly, but the read-only label and mention of set_anchors clearly imply when not to use it (e.g., for writing anchors).

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