verify_assembly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It openly states read-only nature and pure data feedback, and discloses that hidden objects are skipped and counted in skipped_hidden. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a read-only audit, the disclosure is adequate.

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 structured into Reports, Args, and Returns, making it easy to scan. Each sentence provides necessary information without fluff. It is longer than a one-liner but earns its length through comprehensive detail.

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 there is an output schema, the return value description is a bonus but still included. The description covers all four parameters, explains the tool's behavior, and gives usage guidance. Combined with the structured schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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. It provides an Args section explaining checks, float_threshold, and interference_min_volume with default values. However, the 'checks' parameter format is somewhat cryptic (using syntax like {'obj', 'anchor', ...}), and doc_name is only implied, not explicitly described.

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's function: 'Audit the document's spatial sanity' and lists the specific checks it performs (floating, interferences, per-check pass/fail). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_interference or measure_geometry.

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 explicitly says 'Call after modeling/assembly steps for a numeric health report instead of eyeballing screenshots,' which provides clear usage context. However, it does not mention any exclusions or explicitly compare to alternative sibling tools, so it falls 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.