get_geometry_bodies

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

The description only says 'Inspect Mechanical model data,' which is minimal. It does not disclose what kind of data is returned, whether it reflects the current state of the model, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the read-only hint.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the read-only hint. It is concise, but it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context. Still, for a no-parameter tool, brevity is acceptable.

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 the tool has an output schema, the return structure may be documented there, but the description does not explain what 'geometry bodies' are, how they relate to the model, or when to call this tool. Among many sibling inspection tools, this description is too thin to guide an agent effectively.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description correctly implies that no input is needed, and the schema confirms this. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a verb ('Inspect') and a resource ('Mechanical model data'), but it is vague about what 'geometry bodies' specifically means and how it differs from sibling tools like get_model_summary or get_tree. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from other inspection tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The '[READ ONLY]' prefix implies it is safe to call, but there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have a model open) or when to prefer get_model_summary or get_tree instead.

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