probe_sketch_dimensions

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool 'walks root + every sub-component' to find the sketch, which is useful, and details the per-dim payload, including entity coordinates. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., sketch not found), whether it modifies anything (it does not, but that is not explicit), or any permission/read-only guarantees. The description is transparent about its search scope and output structure but not exhaustive regarding edge cases or side effects.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output details. Every sentence contributes: purpose, use case, search behavior, and payload specification. No filler or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return payload (per-dim fields). It explains the search behavior across components and the disambiguation parameter. It stops short of listing error scenarios or confirming read-only status, but for a read-type inspection tool, this is largely sufficient. The description effectively compensates for the missing output schema by detailing the returned fields.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the component_name parameter: 'pass component_name for disambiguation when the same sketch name exists in multiple components,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. It also implies sketch is a name, but does not define its format (e.g., name vs. ID) or whether it must match exactly. The description adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Dump' and clearly states the resource: 'every dimension in a sketch' with detailed outputs (parameter name, expression, value, entity coordinates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_sketch_dimension or add_dimension, which focus on modification rather than inspection.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to identify which literal-named dim controls which geometric feature' when sketches use baked-in numbers. It also provides disambiguation guidance via component_name and mentions walking root and sub-components. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond implied read-only purpose, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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