load_assembly

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

Describes core behavior (open and activate .sldasm file) but omits details like error handling or file state. Without annotations, a bit more depth would be beneficial, but the essential transparency is provided.

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 sentences, no filler. First sentence states purpose, second adds context and alternative. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple load tool with only one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers purpose, usage, and comparison to sibling.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the single parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Full path' which is already in the schema, so baseline 3 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 states it loads a SolidWorks assembly file and makes it active. It uses specific verb 'Load' and resource 'SolidWorks assembly file', and explicitly contrasts with sibling 'open_model'.

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?

Explicitly describes as a convenience wrapper for assemblies and singles out 'open_model' as an alternative, giving agents clear guidance on when to choose this tool.

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