get_assembly_positions

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions units (inches) but lacks details on side effects (none), performance, required permissions, or behavior with empty assemblies. 'World-space bounds' is not clarified, and there is no mention of return structure or pagination.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key detail (inches). Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool returns spatial data for multiple instances, the lack of an output schema means the description should clarify return structure. It does not explain what 'positions' (e.g., translation/rotation) or 'sizes' mean, nor whether results are flat or hierarchical. This is insufficient for an agent to interpret the output.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra constraints or usage notes are given.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'positions, sizes, and world-space bounds of all instances in an assembly' with units specified. It distinguishes from siblings like add_assembly_instance or get_assembly_features, which have different purposes.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for reading instance properties, but does not differentiate from alternatives like get_assembly or list documents. Without exclusions or prerequisites, the agent may not know if this is appropriate for nested assemblies.

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