list_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it declares units (mm, degrees), states the coordinate frame for both transforms and bounding boxes, and discloses that mates may carry an error flag and components may carry a `problem`. It never explicitly says the operation is read-only or non-mutating, which is the main remaining gap for an unannotated tool.

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 core verb and resource lead the first line, and the parenthetical field list is followed by grouped sentences on units/frames, then mates, then the degenerate-geometry case. Every sentence adds a distinct operational fact with no restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates thoroughly by describing the shape of both returned collections, their units, their coordinate frame, and the two error-bearing fields. For a zero-parameter read tool this is enough to consume the result correctly.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, so the baseline applies. It spends no words restating an empty argument object, which is correct.

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 ('List the assembly's components ... and mates') and enumerates the fields returned, so it is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_features, list_bodies, and list_faces. An agent knows exactly which entity class this enumerates.

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?

Usage is implied — read the assembly structure after opening a document — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative for overlapping needs (e.g. get_assembly_bounding_box vs the per-component bounding boxes returned here). The only routing hint is the passive 'see replace_component' pointer on the `problem` field, which is remediation advice rather than tool selection guidance.

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