pro_assembly_configurations

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so "No mutations" merely restates structured data. The one piece of added value is "native" and "exact saved assembly," which signals the data reflects what is stored on disk rather than the live session, but it says nothing about behavior for unsaved or missing documents.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the scope before the safety note. Efficient overall, though the trailing "No mutations" is redundant against the annotations and consumes a sentence without adding 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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears some burden to indicate what "configurations" means in the response — configuration names, active configuration, component-level overrides — and it does not. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is acceptable but leaves a meaningful gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, document_path is entirely undocumented in the schema, and the description never mentions the parameter. The phrase "exact saved assembly" weakly implies the path points to a saved assembly file, but format expectations (e.g., .sldasm, absolute vs. relative path) are left unstated.

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 names a specific verb ("Inspect") and a specific resource ("native assembly and component configurations"), scoped to "the exact saved assembly." This distinguishes it reasonably well from mutation-oriented siblings such as pro_assembly_configure or pro_assembly_clone, though it does not name any sibling 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 only implied: "of the exact saved assembly" hints that the target must be a saved document rather than an in-memory model, which is useful context. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pro_assembly_configure, pro_assembly_pose, or pro_assembly_visibility, and no exclusions.

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