get_anchors

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the auto-derived anchor families, explains the merge/precedence rule with set_anchors, and specifies the return shape including the source field. That is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and coordinate scope, then merge semantics, then the imperative usage note, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place; the parenthetical anchor list is dense but genuinely useful.

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 tool, the description covers purpose, merge behavior, usage timing, and return structure; even though an output schema exists, restating the shape is harmless and helps the agent plan mates. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Two required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden; it says 'an object's' anchors but never explains doc_name vs obj_name, their formats, or whether the object must exist. The implied mapping is inferable but not spelled out.

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 (List) plus resource (assembly anchors) and a critical qualifier (GLOBAL coordinates), which immediately separates it from get_topology, measure_geometry and get_positioning_info. The agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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?

Gives an explicit directive: 'Call it before placing parts and plan mates from the returned numbers; never guess coordinates.' This is clear when-to-use guidance, and the 'explicit wins' merge note implicitly positions it relative to set_anchors. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so 4 rather than 5.

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