get_assembly_features

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-only retrieval operation ('Get'), specifies the state dimension of returned features, and highlights diagnostic value. It does not mention edge cases or side effects, but nothing in the description suggests mutation or hidden consequences.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds a practical use case. Every clause earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple with three required, well-described parameters and no output schema. The description adequately conveys what is returned (features and their states) and why it is useful. It could be slightly more precise about the full structure of the returned data, but for the intended inspection/debugging use case it is sufficient.

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 already documented in the schema with clear descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic detail about parameters beyond implying the assembly context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation: get all features from an assembly, with a specific output of current state values (OK, ERROR, SUPPRESSED). It names the resource type (assembly features) and includes example feature kinds (mates, mate connectors), which distinguishes it from the more generic sibling get_features.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: 'inspecting existing mates and debugging assembly issues.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is concrete enough to guide an agent.

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