verify_assembly

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so repeating 'read-only' earns nothing. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: hidden objects are skipped, thresholds default to 1.0, and measurements are in mm/mm3 — facts an agent cannot get from 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by the hidden-object caveat, an Args block, and a Returns line. Every element is short and earns its place, though the Returns line is somewhat redundant given the output schema.

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 audit tool with four parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, skip behavior, units, defaults, and per-parameter meaning. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does for three of four parameters: checks is the optional anchor-pair distance list, float_threshold is the gap in mm above which a part floats (default 1.0), and interference_min_volume is the smallest reportable common volume in mm3. Only doc_name is left unexplained, and it is self-evident.

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 and resource ('Audit a document's spatial health') and enumerates the three checks it performs: floating parts, interferences, and anchor-pair distances. This implicitly separates it from narrower siblings like check_interference and measure_geometry, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the audit framing and reinforced by 'Trust these numbers over a screenshot,' which tells the agent this is the authoritative verification step. However, there is no explicit when-not or alternative routing against overlapping siblings such as check_interference or measure_geometry.

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