get_assembly_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully states the world-space coordinate context and the mm unit, but it does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens for empty or invalid assemblies, or the response format.

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 entire description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and result, then adds the important unit qualifier. There is no wasted wording.

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 simple read-style tool with three clearly documented parameters, the description gives enough to call it correctly: scope, result contents, coordinate space, and units. The lack of an output schema and any error/empty-assembly behavior is a minor gap, not a blocking one.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear definitions for documentId, workspaceId, and elementId. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('positions, sizes, and world-space bounds of all instances in an assembly') and adds units. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_assembly or get_bounding_box by explicitly scoping it to all assembly instances.

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 implies usage when an agent needs instance geometry transforms within an assembly, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_bounding_box, transform_instance, or get_assembly. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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