list_body_parts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return format ('Comma-separated list'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the tool name. However, it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only/non-destructive behavior, auth needs, ordering, or failure modes; the read-only nature is only implied by 'Get.'

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose with a clear verb and resource; the second is a labeled 'Returns:' section that adds the key output detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and return shape, and an output schema exists to fill in return-value structure. However, it leaves gaps: no differentiation from list_target_muscles, no explicit safety confirmation, and minimal usage context. Adequate but with clear open questions for the agent.

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 the empty input schema cannot carry meaning and the description isn't required to document parameters. Instead, it adds value by explaining the output semantics: a comma-separated list meant for 'filtering,' which the schema cannot convey. This matches the 0-params baseline of 4.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get a list of all available body parts in the database.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from data-retrieval siblings like get_exercises_by_body_part and list_equipment. However, it does not explicitly disambiguate from the closely related sibling list_target_muscles, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The only hint is 'can be used for filtering,' which implies the output feeds downstream filter parameters, but it doesn't tell the agent when to choose this tool over list_target_muscles or any of the other 13 siblings.

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