plasticity_body_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds scoping context ("current document revision"), which is useful, but says nothing about behavior when the id is invalid or about the returned payload, so it is only modestly additive over the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. For a one-parameter read tool it is appropriately sized and wastes nothing.

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 tool is simple and annotations cover safety, but with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves the agent without return-shape or error-behavior context. Adequate but with clear gaps for a body-inspection 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. "Read one body" implies the single integer id identifies a body, which is a reasonable but minimal hint; it adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond that implication.

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?

"Read one body from the current document revision" states a specific verb (read) and resource (one body), and the singular "one body" implicitly distinguishes it from plasticity_list_bodies. However, it does not name or contrast against any sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like plasticity_list_bodies or plasticity_select_bodies, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is for retrieving details of a single known body id.

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