Get mate values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-structured detail — the returned key naming convention (translationZ_in, rotationZ_deg) and the unit system — which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of saying the scope of mates returned or failure behavior.

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 that front-loads the purpose and then supplies output format and units. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding, though it is packed tightly enough to be slightly harder to scan.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknown — what the return looks like, including key shape and units. It does not say which element scope mates are read from or what happens when a mate is suppressed, but the core call-and-interpret loop is complete.

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% and all three identifiers (doc, ws, elem) are documented in the schema with URL-segment mapping, so the description needn't repeat them. It adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline case.

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+resource — reading every mate's current degree-of-freedom values — with concrete output semantics (translations in inches, rotations in degrees). It is distinguishable from write-side siblings by the 'where every mate currently sits' framing, though it never names onshape_set_mate_values or the assembly tooling it relates to.

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 read-only framing ('where every mate currently sits') implies you call this to inspect rather than modify, and onshape_set_mate_values is the obvious counterpart, but the description never states when to use this versus those alternatives or any prerequisite (e.g., that it operates on an assembly element).

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