assembly_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Snapshot' signals a read-only, non-mutating operation and the field list describes what is retrieved, but it is silent on cost, behavior with no active assembly, and whether the snapshot is live or cached.

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 with zero filler, and the payload enumeration is front-loaded so an agent can match it against its information need immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and the description still summarizes the returned fields. For a read-only single-parameter aggregate tool this is nearly sufficient; only the no-active-assembly edge case is unaddressed.

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%, so the single optional 'instance' parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the list_instances pointer. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (snapshot of the active assembly) and enumerates the payload: components with positions, constraint count, mass and volume. It distinguishes itself implicitly from single-query siblings like list_occurrences or list_constraints, but never names them.

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?

'One call instead of several queries' implies the tool is the aggregate shortcut when you need the whole assembly picture rather than one specific datum. No explicit when-to-use/when-not, no named alternatives, and no prerequisite stated (e.g. that a document must be active).

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