assembly_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently reveals key behavior: instances whose solid was consumed or erased are reported, not hidden, and explains the rationale (manifest cannot drift silently). This is valuable beyond a simple listing description.

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 a single, somewhat convoluted sentence with a philosophical explanation ('a manifest that cannot drift silently is the point of having one') that is not strictly necessary. The key facts are present but could be expressed more directly and economically.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (instances, poses, solid existence) and its invariant. It does not explain return format, but the output schema presumably handles that. No major gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. Per guidelines, baseline is 4; the description adds no param details but none are needed. It focuses on output meaning, which is appropriate.

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 indicates the tool returns an assembly manifest with poses and solid existence status for every placed instance. Though it lacks a direct verb like 'list' or 'get', the meaning is specific and distinguishable from sibling assembly tools (assembly_place, assembly_clear).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It does not name sibling tools or state exclusions, though the 'manifest' language implies a query/read context. The behavioral note about erased instances offers some implicit context but not usage direction.

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