linear_pattern

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds important behavioral semantics beyond that: count includes the original, reverse controls the negative direction, and the second direction produces a grid rather than a single row.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and extended only to explain the optional grid direction. There is no wasted wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not document return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description is complete for the main pattern operation, with only minor gaps around reverse2 and the exact meaning of direction2's empty default.

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 only 44%, so the description must carry weight. It compensates well by explaining features as names from get_feature_tree, count as total including the original, spacing_mm, reverse direction, and the second-direction grid parameters; only reverse2 and some default behavior remain unexplained.

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: it repeats selected features in a linear row along a model axis, including grid behavior via a second direction. This clearly distinguishes it from circular patterning by geometry, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives useful setup context, notably that feature names come from get_feature_tree and that direction2/count2/spacing2_mm create a grid. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of circular_pattern or mirror, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites for patterning.

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