quote_assembly

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavior. It details the internal steps: uploading gerbers and BOM, polling for bom_id, and calculating COGS. While it doesn't mention error handling or idempotency, it provides sufficient context for typical use.

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 four lines with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose and then succinctly explains the process. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations but an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's workflow. It could specify prerequisites (e.g., file access, valid formats) or alternative scenarios (e.g., using separate tools), but these are minor omissions for a tool with many parameters and explicit output schema.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline. No improvement over schema is provided.

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 purpose: 'Get a combined fabrication + assembly quote.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like quote_fabrication by emphasizing the combined nature.

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?

Description explains that the tool uploads gerbers and BOM, then polls for BOM status and calculates COGS. This implies it should be used when both fabrication and assembly quotes are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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