get_assembly

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

No annotations are present, so the description is the sole safety signal. The verb 'Get' clearly conveys a read/query operation and explicitly mentions the returned content (instances and occurrences), but it does not disclose whether the result is hierarchical, flat, or includes additional details like transforms.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and every word contributes to the core meaning. It is concise, though slightly terse to the point of omitting useful contextual details.

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?

The call itself is simple, with three required ID parameters, and there is no output schema. The description gives a reasonable high-level understanding of the result, but it falls short of fully specifying the return structure or the exact meaning of 'instances and occurrences.'

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the semantic burden. The description adds no additional meaning or context for the IDs beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource: 'assembly structure including instances and occurrences.' This meaningfully distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_assembly_positions or get_assembly_features, though the term 'structure' remains somewhat abstract.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools with overlapping functionality. An agent must infer usage purely from the name and generic phrasing.

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