fusion_list_bodies

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists all solid bodies and indicates the output fields, but it does not mention side effects, errors, or whether an active design is required. Adequate for a simple read-only listing operation.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and output, followed by a practical usage hint. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers the essential return values and purpose. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., empty design behavior) but is otherwise complete for its complexity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by clarifying the tool's output semantics (id, name, volume, bounding box), which is more useful than explaining parameters that don't exist.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' plus resource 'all solid bodies in the design' and enumerates returned fields (id, name, volume, bounding box). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly tying to getting a body_id for combine/fillet/export.

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?

Clearly states when to use ('use this to get a body_id for combine/fillet/export'), giving actionable context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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