quantity-takeoff__list_assemblies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists assemblies and includes a note about 'locked waste + purchase rounding', but does not mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or whether the list is exhaustive.

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 concise, but the prefix 'quantity-takeoff — auditable construction material takeoffs (locked waste + purchase rounding)' is a category description rather than tool-specific. It adds context but could be streamlined.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description adequately explains the tool's return value. It covers the key items listed, though it omits details like pagination or ordering, which would be useful for a list tool.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds meaning by explaining what is listed (dimensions, formulas, waste defaults, material-pack digest), which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 'List' and the resource 'supported assemblies', and enumerates what is included (dimensions, formulas, waste defaults, material-pack digest). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_assembly and get_material_pack by focusing on listing all assemblies.

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 an overview of all assemblies, but lacks exclusions or comparison with specific siblings.

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