list_bodies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned metrics (volume, bbox, topology counts), but says nothing about scope (all bodies? visible only?), ordering, or cost of refresh.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the resource and the payload. No waste, though it's arguably too terse to route an agent between this and describe_body.

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?

With an output schema and read-only annotations present, the description needn't explain return shapes. The one remaining gap is how this relates to describe_body for an agent choosing between the two.

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% and the single 'refresh' parameter is fully described in the schema as a re-read after UI edits. The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb-resource pair implicitly ('list' + bodies) and enumerates the key returned attributes (volume, bounding box, face/edge counts), which tells an agent what the tool surfaces. It doesn't explicitly contrast with describe_body, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use this versus describe_body (single-body detail) or measure_distance. No guidance about the refresh parameter's role or when a re-read is needed.

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