fusion_get_body_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, what errors might occur, or any side effects. The 'get' prefix implies read-only, but it is not explicitly stated, and the description adds no information about limitations 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 two sentences: the first states what the tool returns, the second gives a direct use case. No fluff or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with actionable guidance.

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 description is fairly complete for a simple getter: it enumerates the returned geometry components and provides a concrete use case. However, given no output schema or annotations, it would benefit from clarifying how to obtain body_id (e.g., from fusion_list_bodies) and distinguishing this from mesh_summary. The lack of parameter explanation is a gap.

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 only parameter, body_id, has zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain what body_id is, where to obtain it, or its format. It only appears as a string ID, leaving the agent without clear guidance on how to populate it correctly.

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: to get detailed geometry of one body, including specific face and edge properties. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on solid body geometry with face/edge details, and even hints at a specific downstream use (building edge selectors).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to obtain edge midpoints for building edge_selector for fusion_add_fillet and fusion_add_chamfer. It implies the primary context (geometry inspection) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like mesh_summary for mesh geometry.

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