list_body_entities

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates that this is an enumeration operation (read-only by nature) and describes the output format (lists with handle, index, geometric info). It also explains filtering options. However, it doesn't address potential edge cases like errors on nonexistent bodies or empty results, which would be minor additional transparency.

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 and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then provides context, then parameter explanations, then return values, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to scan and act upon.

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 that there is no output schema, the description must explain return values, which it does (lists with handle, index, geometric info). It also covers all parameters, including defaults and typical uses, and mentions downstream usage. For a tool with moderate complexity (5 params), this is complete coverage without leaving critical gaps.

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 has zero descriptions for parameters, so the description must explain them. It does so thoroughly: kinds (with default), face_normal_filter (with example), edge_parallel_to, and min_edge_length_mm (with typical use). Each parameter's meaning and purpose are clearly defined, adding significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 enumerates faces/edges/vertices of a body and returns their handles. It further distinguishes itself by positioning as the bridge between name-addressing (bodies) and handle-addressing (sub-entities), which sets it apart from sibling tools that operate on bodies or handles directly.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the returned handles in downstream tools like measure, fillet_edges, etc., implying when this tool is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for typical scenarios.

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