linear_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral distinction: fuse=false creates numbered copies while preserving the original, and fuse=true returns one solid containing all instances. It still omits permission requirements and failure behavior, but the main outcome semantics are well covered.

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 three tight sentences: the first defines the operation, the second explains fuse semantics, and the third gives a typical use case. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the critical mode distinction and a practical example, but for a seven-parameter CAD operation it could say more about doc, name, and direction format.

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 usefully explains count including the original, spacing in mm, direction, fuse output behavior, and result_name for copies, but it does not explain doc or name, leaving part of the seven-parameter surface undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: repeat an object count times along a direction at a given spacing. It also distinguishes the two operating modes via fuse=false versus fuse=true, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives a concrete typical use case: pattern a cylinder 'tool', then boolean cut it from a plate. This clarifies context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as polar_pattern or mirror when a linear pattern is not appropriate.

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