list_bodies_by_generation

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

No annotations provided, but the description adds caching behavior ('Cached 7 days'), which is useful. It does not cover other aspects like auth or error handling, but for a read operation this is adequate.

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 short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds caching context. No unnecessary words, very efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and caching. It could mention output format or error scenarios, but current completeness is high for a list tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning to the generation_id parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('Generation id.').

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 clearly states the tool lists body types for a given generation, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_body_styles which likely list all body styles without generation filter, though it doesn't explicitly contrast.

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 mentions caching (7 days), hinting at usage for recent data needs, but lacks explicit when to use vs alternative list tools or conditions under which to use this tool.

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