read_sketch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses return contents (geometry types, MODEL coordinates in mm, construction geometry marking, dimensions, fully-defined status), but does not mention permissions, errors, or side-effect guarantees beyond the implication that 'read' is safe.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the return details. Every clause contributes useful return or usage information with 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values; it does so with geometry types, coordinate system, units, dimensions, and fully-defined status. Parameter validation and missing-sketch behavior remain implicit, keeping it from being fully complete for a no-annotation 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required 'name' parameter. The description identifies it as a list_features name, which helps an agent source the value, but does not specify naming conventions, case sensitivity, or error behavior for invalid names.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (sketch) and enumerates the returned entities: lines, arcs, circles, splines, dimensions, and fully-defined status. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_features and list_dimensions.

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?

Explicitly says to check a design against fixed points before building on it with extrude_sketch / cut_sketch, and references list_features as the source of the sketch name. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative for listing sketches without geometry.

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