plasticity_list_bodies

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, non-destructive read, so the description wisely spends its space on behavior annotations cannot express: page size defaults and the 100 cap, the revision-pinning requirement that prevents mixing pages after edits, and the fact that cone faces carry extra basis/axis/semi-angle data. This is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs before paging.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler; the purpose and pagination contract are front-loaded before the sibling pointer and the cone-face note. Slightly dense but every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does a reasonable job describing what comes back (topology IDs, pagination cursor, cone face basis data). It does not fully enumerate the returned body fields, but for a paginated listing tool the critical call-correctness information is present.

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 the load and it does: bodyOffset described (default 0) and bodyLimit (default 10, max 100) are both explained in prose, and expectedRevision is given meaning and format ('pass the previous page's revision'), not just a 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List exact native B-Rep body details with topology IDs') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by naming plasticity_body_info and the condition that selects it. An agent can separate this from plasticity_body_info, plasticity_select_bodies, and plasticity_validate_bodies without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing ('Prefer plasticity_body_info when only one body is needed') and mandatory pagination procedure with the nextOffset/expectedRevision contract. It also flags that the revision must be threaded to prevent mixing edits across pages, which is the key usage constraint.

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