check_assembly_stands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It vaguely promises that 'every assumption said out loud' will be surfaced, which is a useful hint, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what inputs drive the judgment, what the output contains, or what limitations apply.

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?

It is a single sentence, so length is not the issue, but the front-loaded verb and metaphor ('Judge how an object LIVES') prioritize style over clarity. The sentence is concise yet under-informative rather than wastefully long.

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 13-parameter structural or assembly-stability tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain required inputs, optional context such as gravity or materials, expected assumptions, or what a result means.

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?

The tool has 13 parameters at 54% schema description coverage, and most schema descriptions are only defaults. The description does not explain what parameters like pose, gravity, intent, lives_as, materials, pin_recipes, or carried_mass_g mean in the context of the stability judgment.

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 says 'Judge how an object LIVES and whether it STANDS', which hints at stability or structural evaluation but uses metaphorical and capitalized terms that obscure the actual operation. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like validate_assembly, check_assembly_clearances, analyze_frame_bracing, or estimate_structural_load.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related assembly-validation or structural-analysis siblings. It mentions 'geometry and the words' and 'every assumption said out loud' but gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting it.

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