check_sketch_fully_defined

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the check action but does not mention whether it is read-only (though implied), what happens if the sketch does not exist, or any potential side effects.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, likely boolean output), the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits explicit mention of return value or error scenarios, though the presence of an output schema mitigates this. Some context like requiring an active sketch is only in the schema, not the description.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter description already detailed in the input schema (e.g., 'Optional sketch name. If omitted, checks the active or last sketch.'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but the schema suffices, yielding a baseline score of 3.

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 'Check whether a sketch is fully defined' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_drawing_compliance' or 'check_interference', but the context of sketches is unique enough.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description lacks information on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., sketch must exist), or conditions under which it should not be used.

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