assembly_list_joints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' and the detailed return contents make the read-only diagnostic purpose clear, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or active-document requirements.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then justifies its length with detailed return-object documentation and an example because no output schema exists. Every section adds useful information without filler.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is complete: it explains what is listed, when to use it, and the exact shape of the returned joints, joint origins, and rigid groups.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The empty input schema is sufficient, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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?

States a specific verb and resource set: 'List the joints, as-built joints, joint origins and rigid groups of every component', with the exact data returned (values, limits, suppression, health). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like assembly_drive_joint and assembly_create_joint because it is a read/list operation.

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?

Gives a clear use case: 'Use it to check a mechanism after assembly_drive_joint.' However, it does not name exclusions or alternatives such as assembly_list for components, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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