Draw a circle in a CAD plan by specifying its center and radius, enabling precise geometry for architectural modeling.
Draw a circle (mm).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | No | ||
| center | Yes | ||
| radius | Yes | ||
| fit_view | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the intended action and does not explain what drawing a circle does to the document, whether it operates on the active layer, how fit_view behaves, or what output to expect.
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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It provides minimal information beyond restating the tool's purpose and adds no actionable detail.
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 4-parameter creation tool with no annotations, this description is incomplete. It omits coordinate system, layer semantics, fit_view behavior, and any guidance about required versus optional parameters, so an agent cannot reliably 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?
The '(mm)' hint gives some unit context for the radius and center coordinates, which the schema does not specify. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain center format, layer behavior, or fit_view, leaving most parameter semantics 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 names a specific action ('draw') and resource ('circle'), and the '(mm)' suffix clarifies units. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_rectangle and create_arc by the object type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 alternatives such as create_arc or create_polyline. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.