get_body_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the returned data but does not mention read-only behavior, safety, or potential side effects. The term 'get' implies read-only, but explicit confirmation would improve transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences: one describing the function and output, and one providing usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists key return values (face IDs, surface types, normal vectors, origin points). It also mentions a downstream use case. Missing information about pagination or error handling, but the tool appears simple enough.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it neither repeats nor elaborates on parameter details.

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 retrieves face-level geometry details for all parts in a Part Studio, specifying the output: face IDs, surface types, and for planar faces normal vectors and origin points. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_face_coordinate_system or align_instance_to_face.

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 indicates usage context: 'Use face IDs with mate connector tools.' This tells the agent when the output is applicable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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