list_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content in detail, including units, coordinate systems, mate fields, and SolidWorks mate errors, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or clarify prerequisites such as an active assembly document.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then supplies units, mate details, and filtering guidance in a compact sequence. Every sentence adds useful information for invocation or result interpretation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains what components and mates contain. It is nearly complete for selection and invocation, though it could mention required document state or explicitly confirm the read-only nature of the operation.

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, and it does: 'name' supports wildcard and substring matching, 'mates=False' omits mates, and 'brief=True' returns only name, path, and fixed. It could be slightly clearer about default/null behavior for 'name', but all three parameters are meaningfully explained.

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 starts with a precise verb and resource: 'List the assembly's components ... and mates.' It also names the returned component and mate fields, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_bodies, list_faces, list_features, and list_equations.

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 gives clear operational guidance for large assemblies: narrow by 'name', suppress mates with mates=False, or use brief=True for a minimal result. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools, but the within-tool filtering guidance is strong.

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