List assembly features

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description adds value by disclosing what is returned — feature ids, payloads and regeneration states — which goes beyond the annotation. It stops short of describing shape, pagination or ordering, but that is a minor gap for a read-only listing.

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 dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource enumeration before the returned fields. It reads as a noun fragment rather than a full statement of action, a small structural weakness but nothing wasted.

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, three-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the return contents an agent needs to decide relevance. It could say a bit more about what 'payloads' and 'regeneration states' contain, but the essentials are present.

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 100% with all three identifiers (doc, ws, elem) documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about how these identifiers are used or whether they can be defaulted.

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 names the exact resource set — mates, mate connectors, groups and relations in an assembly — which clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like onshape_get_features or onshape_get_assembly. The verb is implied rather than stated (the title supplies 'List'), but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as onshape_get_assembly, onshape_get_mate_values, or onshape_get_features. An agent must infer from the noun list alone that this is the tool for inspecting existing assembly mating structure.

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