generate_assembly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Returns the created harness ID' and 'appears in Splice as an editable harness linked to the project,' indicating a persistent, editable creation. It does not mention permissions or side effects on the plan, but the core behavior is transparent enough.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's function, return value, and effect, making it concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 4 required) and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers key aspects: what it does, how it selects entities, what it returns, and where the result appears. A minor gap is not explaining the relationship between nodes and bundles, but overall it is complete enough.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by linking parameters to the concept of 'selecting which nodes and bundles to include,' which maps to node_ids and link_ids. This provides context beyond the individual schema properties.

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: 'Generate a harness assembly from a plan by selecting which nodes and bundles to include.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_harness by emphasizing the plan-driven selection process, and it specifies the outcome (returns created harness ID, appears in Splice).

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 from a plan ('from a plan') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_harness or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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