list_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses return semantics, units, coordinate systems, and mate error reporting, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether an assembly must be open, or what side effects or limitations exist.

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 the core action and then efficiently details return fields, units, and coordinate systems. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining returned component and mate fields plus units. It is slightly incomplete because it does not say whether subassembly components are included or whether the assembly must already be open.

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 input parameters, so parameter semantics baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because there is no parameter surface to explain.

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 (List) and resource (assembly's components and mates), with concrete return fields. It clearly differs from siblings like list_faces or list_edges by resource type, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast their scopes.

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 description explains what is returned but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent can infer it is for inspecting assembly components/mates, but the definition does not state when to choose it over related tools such as list_features or get_assembly_bounding_box.

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