check_assembly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is non-mutating ("without moving it"), reports passed=false on failure, and limits its own scope, though it does not describe success output, synchronous behavior, or plan prerequisites.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and key behavioral constraint, followed by a compact scope disclaimer. Both sentences earn their place and there is no redundant wording.

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?

The description covers purpose, non-mutation, failure signaling, and scope limits, which is adequate for a simple one-parameter check tool. It still leaves gaps around how plan_id is sourced and what a successful result contains, with no output schema to compensate.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter, plan_id. The description only refers to "a plan" and does not explain the expected identifier format, where to obtain it, or whether the plan must already exist.

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 states a specific verb and resource: measure current geometry against a plan. The phrase "without moving it" distinguishes it from mutating assembly operations such as apply_alignment, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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 second sentence gives useful scope exclusions, making clear what this tool does not validate. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose check_assembly over siblings like preview_alignment, plan_alignment, or get_assembly_job.

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