list_assembly_parts

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

With no annotations provided the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (name, type, linked-target name, position, volume), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, how permissions work, or how results scale for large assemblies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the returned fields after. No padding or wasted clauses, though the field list could be introduced more cleanly.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields compensates reasonably for the missing output schema. However, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter format, the description is not fully sufficient to invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter, so the description must compensate. It only implies the parameter via 'of an assembly' and never specifies the expected format (assembly name, handle, or document path), leaving the agent guessing.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('parts of an assembly') and even enumerates the returned fields. It is distinguishable from list-oriented siblings like list_objects and list_faces, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to contrast against.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The agent must infer from the name that this is the correct tool for inspecting assembly composition, with no exclusions offered.

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