quantity-takeoff__get_assembly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only describes what is returned but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a read operation, it does not confirm that it is read-only or safe to call repeatedly.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs. It uses a domain context prefix and front-loads the action verb 'Return'. No redundant or unnecessary words are present.

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 moderate complexity of retrieving an assembly with multiple fields, the description lists the return components adequately. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage examples, making it minimally sufficient but not fully complete for agent reasoning.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the parameter 'assembly_type' has no description in the schema. The tool description does not elaborate on valid values, format, or examples. It only implies that assembly_type identifies the assembly, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Return' and specifies the resource: 'one assembly's formula, required dimensions, material factors, purchase increment, sources, and material-pack lineage.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_assemblies' by focusing on a single assembly, and from 'calculate_takeoff' which computes rather than retrieves.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed information on a specific assembly but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use. It lacks comparison to alternatives like 'list_assemblies' for enumeration or 'calculate_takeoff' for computation, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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