get_multi_body_design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns verbatim excerpts from the book, which is transparent about content. However, it does not mention any safety or side effects, though none are expected for a simple read 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and enumerates the bodies. It is front-loaded with the core concept. Could be slightly more concise but carries necessary detail.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells exactly what is returned (the design with excerpts). No additional context seems necessary for this simple 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?

There are zero parameters, so per the baseline rule, the score is 4. The description adds no param-specific meaning because none exist, and schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 that the tool returns Bouricius's specific 'multi-body sortition' reference design from Chapter 16, listing all seven specialized bodies. This precisely distinguishes it from siblings like get_chapter (which returns chapter content broadly) or get_principles.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve that specific design, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provides any conditions or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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