verify_assembly

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly marks the operation as read-only and pure data feedback, details the types of checks performed, and describes the return structure. It does not cover edge cases or permissions, but for a non-mutating audit it provides substantial behavioral disclosure.

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 well structured, with purpose, call timing, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds actionable detail; there is no filler or 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?

Given an output schema, detailed parameter descriptions, and read-only semantics, the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool. Return format is summarized (lists plus summary) and the call context is stated. Minor missing sibling differentiation is already covered and does not undermine completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining checks, units (mm, mm3), and defaults for float_threshold and interference_min_volume. It even sketches the shape of each check dict, making parameter semantics far clearer than the bare 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 opens with 'Audit the document's spatial sanity (read-only, pure data feedback)', clearly specifying the action and resource. It enumerates specific outputs (floating, interferences, per-check pass/fail) and distinguishes from visual inspection by offering a numeric health report.

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?

It states 'Call after modeling/assembly steps for a numeric health report instead of eyeballing screenshots', giving a clear temporal context. However, it doesn't name sibling tools such as check_interference or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of full alternative differentiation.

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