list_occurrences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the output is a compact text table, first element is an index used by later calls, and depth>=2 changes both what is listed and the path notation emitted. It does not address index stability across calls or behavior on an empty assembly, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and a single illustrative output line, then the argument notes. The example line is dense but earns its place by defining the index/grounded format; nothing is redundant.

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 values need not be spelled out, and the description still flags the table format and index convention. Combined with the documented instance param and explained depth behavior, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior is absent.

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 only 50%; the depth parameter has no schema description, and the body compensates by explaining that 2+ includes sub-assembly components and yields paths like 'Frame:1/Post:2' for specific downstream tools. The instance parameter is fully documented in the schema itself, so both params are covered, though exact semantics for depth values beyond 2 are left implicit.

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 operation and scope: a compact table of the assembly's components, with a sample output line showing the index/name/position/grounded format. That clearly separates it from siblings like list_features, list_edges or list_documents, which cover different resources, though no sibling is named directly.

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 states that the returned indices feed the constrain tools, and the depth arg explains that deeper listing is what you need for assembly_faces / constrain_faces / check_interference. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the routing to downstream tools is concrete.

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