read_sketch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description contributes the unit convention and the notion of returning 'verified measurements and error evidence', but leaves important behavior unstated, such as what happens when the named sketch does not exist or whether the SOLIDWORKS engine must be connected/running.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler beyond the slightly promotional 'independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' phrase. Every sentence carries at least a unit or output hint, so it is close to minimal.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is serviceable but incomplete: it omits what 'name' identifies and does not describe the shape of the returned measurement/error evidence, which is the main reason an agent would call it.

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% for the single parameter 'name', and the description does not compensate: it never explains whether 'name' is a sketch name, a document name, or a qualified path, nor whether it is case-sensitive or must already exist. With one required free-form string and no schema prose, the description should have defined it.

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 verb+resource ('Read sketch') is stated, and the description adds that results come from a native SOLIDWORKS engine with mm/degrees/kg units plus 'verified measurements and error evidence'. However, it never says what reading a sketch actually yields (entities, dimensions, constraint status?), and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as add_sketch, cut_sketch, extrude_sketch, or list_features.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of prerequisites (does a document need to be active?), no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives like list_dimensions or list_faces for other inspection needs. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name.

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