get_active_assembly_info

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

Discloses that components are top-level only (no recursion) and lists all included metadata. Being a read-only query, no side effects are expected, but the description could note it's safe. Still, transparent given no annotations.

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 succinct sentences: first states purpose and contents, second provides usage guidance. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists key return fields (name, flag, configurations, components, mates). Lacks format details but sufficient for an agent to understand what entities exist. Could be more precise about return structure.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% with zero params. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, but parameter semantics are trivially satisfied due to absence.

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 the tool returns metadata about the active SolidWorks assembly, listing specific items like assembly name, modified flag, and configurations. It distinguishes from siblings like get_active_part_info by focusing on assemblies.

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 advises calling before mate/suppression/configuration operations so the LLM knows existing entities. No alternative tools mentioned, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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