Get body topology

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

The description adds the deterministic nature of IDs, which is useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details such as response structure or limits, and the annotation already covers safety.

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, focused sentence that conveys the essential function and a key attribute (deterministic IDs) without waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 read-only retrieval tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what is returned and why it is useful. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it could benefit from a note on how the IDs are structured.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all three parameters are documented. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (bodies, faces, edges) and the purpose (providing deterministic IDs for explicit edge selection). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from a generic 'get' operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'the source for explicit edge selection' implies a use case but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like onshape_get_edges or onshape_find_edges_by_feature. There is no clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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