Get assembly structure

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds the content scope (instances, occurrences, mate features, connectors) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as output size, no-return-value cases, or performance characteristics. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 very short and free of fluff, and the key returned content is listed compactly. It is under-specified as a sentence fragment but appropriately sized for a simple read-only assembly-structure tool.

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 read-only tool with complete parameter schema coverage, the description lists the main content of the result, partially compensating for the absent output schema. However, it does not explain how the include_* flags affect the result, whether the response is nested/hierarchical, or how occurrences relate to instances, which an agent might need for correct interpretation.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including defaults. The description repeats some concepts (mate features, mate connectors) but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 title 'Get assembly structure' provides the verb and resource, and the description lists the specific components (instances, occurrences, mate features, mate connectors) that the tool returns. It is clear what the tool does, though the description itself is a noun fragment and does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like onshape_get_assembly_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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as onshape_get_assembly_features, onshape_get_bom, or onshape_get_parts. The agent is left to infer the use case from the tool name and description.

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