describe_body

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the payload's structure and downstream ID usage, but it stays silent on the limit/pagination behavior and defaults that the schema hints at.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the returned content and ends with the actionable detail about IDs. It earns its place, though cramming both face and edge field lists into one line reduces readability slightly.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the ID hand-off to sibling tools is covered. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 25% schema coverage, the description should say what limit and the include_* toggles do, which it omits.

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 only 25% (only `body` is documented). The description never explains `limit` (default 300, max 2000) or the `include_edges`/`include_faces` toggles, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. An agent must guess what these three parameters do.

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 concretely states that it returns faces (with type, area, normal, radius, centre) and edges (type, length, ends, radius) of one body, plus the IDs that the face/edge tools consume. This distinguishes it from list_bodies (which presumably just enumerates bodies) and from the selection tools, but it lacks an explicit verb framing a describe operation.

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?

It implies usage by noting it provides 'the ids that the face/edge tools take,' which hints it should be called before select_faces/select_edges/fillet_edges. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when to skip include_edges/include_faces.

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