create_rectangle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well by explaining that (x, y) is the lower-left corner, that width/height default to 10000 x 8000 mm, that a layer is created on first use, and that omitting a layer leaves the rectangle unfilterable by layer. The only notable omission is the behavior of the fit_view parameter.

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: the primary purpose is stated first, followed by a concise second sentence covering defaults, layer behavior, and return content. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 no annotations, the description covers plane, units, coordinate semantics, defaults, layer behavior, and return summary. An output schema exists, so return details need not be spelled out. The only real gap is the unexplained fit_view parameter, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 adds meaning for x and y (lower-left corner), width/height (default dimensions), and layer (placement and creation semantics). It does not explain fit_view, which remains ambiguous despite its schema default.

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 and resource: 'Draw a 2D rectangle in the open FreeCAD', and adds the XY plane and mm units. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling primitive tools like create_line, create_circle, and create_arc, which draw different shapes.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: this tool is for drawing rectangles. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as using create_wall_2d for wall-specific rectangles.

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