get_assembly_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the visual output and red framing behavior, but it does not cover return format, permissions, handling of multiple views, failure cases, or what happens when no exploded view exists.

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 two efficient sentences, front-loading the primary action and then adding usage examples and highlighting behavior. The parenthetical qualifiers are compact, though slightly informal.

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?

The schema is fully documented and the description sufficiently identifies the operation, but with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain what the tool returns and how it relates to get_drawing_image. The core invocation is clear, but context is incomplete for an image-producing tool.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions reference numbers being framed in red, which relates to the highlight parameters, but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: show an exploded view of an assembly part. The brake caliper example and the has_components/inside_assembly condition make the intended resource clearer, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_drawing_image tool.

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?

The description implies the tool is for assembly parts with components or parts inside assemblies, giving some usage context. However, it lacks explicit when-not guidance and does not name get_drawing_image or other siblings as alternatives.

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