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 burden. It describes the tool as returning data, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description lacks behavioral disclosure.

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 with a parenthetical header. It lists multiple fields concisely without adding fluff. It is front-loaded with the domain context. However, it could be slightly more structured, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 only 1 parameter and no output schema, the description provides a list of return fields (formula, dimensions, etc.) but lacks detail on output structure, types, or nesting. It does not describe any error conditions or exceptional behavior. It is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but leaves gaps.

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%. The only parameter 'assembly_type' has no description or enumerated values in the schema. The tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning, valid values, or expected format. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 the resource 'one assembly's formula, required dimensions, material factors, purchase increment, sources, and material-pack lineage', distinguishing it from siblings like list_assemblies (which lists assemblies) and get_material_pack (which gets a material pack). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving a single assembly's details, but does not mention exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like list_assemblies or get_material_pack. No context on prerequisites or conditions.

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