catia_list_bodies

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful operation-specific behavior by saying the result flags the main body and the currently in-work body, which tells the agent what information to expect beyond a plain listing.

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 entire description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence. It leads with the action and resource, then adds the two important flag semantics without redundancy or filler.

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, read-only list operation it is nearly complete: the agent knows the scope, the object type, and the key extra output semantics. It does not describe the exact return shape or error behavior when no part/body is active, but the low complexity keeps this from being a large gap.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The description's scope language ('active part') clarifies the implicit context for this parameter-less call.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('solid bodies'), and the scoping container ('the active part'). It adds two discriminating output semantics—main-body flag and in-work-body flag—which distinguishes it from generic listing tools like catia_list_features or catia_describe_tree.

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 active-part scoping and 'target of new features' wording imply a body-inspection use case, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over catia_list_features, catia_describe_tree, or catia_set_active_body, and no exclusions are stated.

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