solidworks_assembly_tree

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

The annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description's 'Inspect' aligns with this. The phrase 'with bounds' adds behavioral context, indicating that the tool will respect depth and component limits. No contradictions exist.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that captures the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.

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 adequately covers what the tool does, but does not mention return format or output structure. Given the tool's simple inspection nature and that an output schema exists (though not shown), the absence of explicit output details is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 provides parameter names with defaults but no per-parameter descriptions. The description's 'with bounds' hints at the purpose of max_depth and max_components, but the meaning of 'document' is not elaborated. Parameter semantics rely heavily on self-explanatory names rather than explicit guidance.

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 tool's purpose: to inspect assembly occurrences, parent relationships, suppression, and transforms. The verb 'Inspect' is specific, and the resource is clearly the assembly tree. It distinguishes itself from siblings like solidworks_inspect by focusing on the assembly hierarchy.

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 when assembly tree information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as solidworks_inspect or solidworks_assembly. No exclusions or comparisons are given, making the guidance only implicit.

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