sw_list_bodies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does at least disclose the return content and units (bounding box in mm). However it says nothing about whether hidden/suppressed bodies are included, ordering, or that it is a read-only operation — meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the returned data with zero filler. Well sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return shape a bit more (e.g., one entry per body, ordering, whether the bbox is a min/max pair). It covers the essentials (bodies + bbox in mm) but leaves the response structure underspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description's mention of mm units is a small bonus but not a parameter concern.

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 specific verb+resource: lists the solid bodies of the active document, and even names the payload (bounding box in mm). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like sw_bbox or sw_list_features, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an active document / open model), and no pointer to alternatives such as sw_bbox or sw_list_features. The agent must infer that this applies only when a document is already open.

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