get_body_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the output scope ('all parts'), the key identifiers returned, and the conditional planar-face data, while the 'Get... Returns' phrasing implies a read-only operation. It does not mention coordinate frame, units, or response packaging, but for a non-destructive query tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation, the second specifies the return payload, and the third gives the practical downstream use. Every sentence earns its place, and the most distinguishing information is front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with three standard ID parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid contract of what is returned and why it matters. It is missing the response structure and coordinate system context for the normal/origin values, which would be useful, but the tool is simple enough that the description is still largely complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents documentId, workspaceId, and elementId adequately. The description adds little beyond labeling the element as a Part Studio, which is helpful but not substantive new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get face-level geometry details for all parts in a Part Studio.' It goes beyond a generic label by enumerating the returned data (face deterministic IDs, surface types, planar normals and origins), which clearly differentiates it from part-level tools like get_parts and more specific ones like get_face_coordinate_system.

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 implies a use case by stating 'Use face IDs with mate connector tools,' which tells the agent the downstream purpose of the output. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_parts or get_face_coordinate_system, nor does it give exclusions or conditions.

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