pattern_rectangular

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose side effects itself, but it never states that a pattern is created or that the model is modified. It only explains axis and distance syntax, not what the operation does to the selected feature_or_body.

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 compact and front-loaded: 'Rectangular pattern' first, then only the two parameter groups most likely to be ambiguous. There is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 an 8-parameter modeling operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema description coverage, this description is not complete enough. It omits the meaning of feature_or_body, count behavior, and any result or error context, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

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?

With schema descriptions at 0%, the description adds real meaning to x_axis/y_axis via allowed axis values and to x_distance/y_distance via total-extent expression examples. The remaining parameters are mostly inferable from their schema names and defaults, so the added coverage is adequate.

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 identifies the tool as a rectangular pattern operation, which clearly separates it from the sibling pattern_circular. It lacks an explicit verb like 'creates' or 'patterns', but the axis/distance details make the intended operation clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus pattern_circular or other pattern-related tools. The description provides parameter syntax but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternate tool recommendations.

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