pattern_circular

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the axis options and does not disclose side effects (e.g., modifying the model), requirements (e.g., needing an existing feature), or behavior around invalid inputs like count or total_angle.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and axis options. It is appropriately short though it omits useful details, but it earns a high score for brevity and clarity.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is significantly incomplete. It fails to explain the required 'feature_or_body' parameter or the effect of 'count' and 'total_angle', leaving the agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description only explains the 'axis' parameter with its allowed values. It does not clarify 'count', 'total_angle', 'feature_or_body', or 'name', leaving most parameters semantically 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 clearly states it creates a circular pattern around an axis, specifying the axis options (x|y|z|<construction_axis_name>). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling pattern_rectangular.

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 usage for circular patterns but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., pattern_rectangular) or provide exclusions. The axis specification gives some context but lacks guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

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