fusion_list_sketch_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists the output fields (index, area, centroid) and implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it mention failure modes (e.g., sketch with no closed regions) or permissions. The description adds some value beyond the action name but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and then provides the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states what is returned (index, area, centroid) and why to use it. It could additionally mention edge cases like an empty sketch or the exact return format, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 only one parameter, sketch_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on sketch_id beyond the tool name and context, but the meaning is self-evident from the tool purpose. Since the schema provides no help, the description could have explicitly defined sketch_id, but the omission is minor given the simplicity.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'closed regions (profiles) Fusion has found in a sketch'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on sketch profiles rather than bodies or meshes, and it specifies the output fields (index, area, centroid).

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: 'use this to pick the right profile_index for extrude()/revolve() when a sketch has more than one closed region.' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. It does imply the usage scenario effectively.

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