list_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real but partial context: output units (mm, degrees, kg) and the existence of error evidence alongside measurements. With no output schema, it should have described what a component record contains (name, transform, suppression state), which it does not.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding, which is appropriately sized. However the ordering is poor: the unit convention and the vague "inspect verified measurements and error evidence" clause sit after an unscoped purpose statement, and the middle sentence reads as boilerplate rather than front-loaded information.

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-argument list tool with no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what comes back, and it says almost nothing — no mention of component names, count, ordering, or how a component relates to the assembly tree. The unit note helps only if the agent already knows the return shape. This leaves a real gap for the agent's next step.

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 takes zero parameters and additionalProperties is false, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. The baseline of 4 applies since nothing is left ambiguous on the input side.

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 verb+resource ("List components") is stated, but "components" is never scoped — the sibling set includes insert_component, delete_component, replace_component and set_component_transform, implying assembly components, yet the description never says so. It also does not distinguish itself from list_bodies, list_features, or list_dimensions, so an agent must infer which list tool it needs. The phrase "through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" adds branding rather than scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative; an agent cannot tell from the description whether this applies to the active document, a specific assembly, or all open files. "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence" gestures at a follow-up workflow but never states the condition under which it applies. No exclusions are given.

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