get_part_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It states the map is 'stable' but does not explicitly indicate that this is a read-only operation with no side effects. Since it is a getter, this is likely safe, but the description does not state it, leaving room for ambiguity about potential state changes or permissions.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. It is appropriately front-loaded, with the core idea of a stable mapping immediately present.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context by specifying the scope ('base idle template'). It does not enumerate the parts or the id format, but these are likely captured in the output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description adds value by explaining the output: a mapping from part names to integer ids. It does not need to describe parameter semantics since there are none, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4.

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 returns a stable mapping from part names to integer ids for the base idle template. It identifies the resource and the specific nature of the output, which distinguishes it from generation or planning tools among the siblings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', though the intent is unmistakable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is a lookup for part ids, it does not mention contexts where it should or should not be used, nor does it point to any sibling for alternative scenarios. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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