sketch_mirror

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'creates mirrored copies' and 'maintains symmetrical design relationships,' but it does not explain whether the original entities are preserved, if a centerline must already exist, or how the selection is made. This leaves moderate ambiguity.

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 long and immediately states the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the purpose and adds value with the benefit statement. Every sentence earns its place without verbosity.

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?

The output schema exists but was not provided; per guidelines, the description need not explain return values. However, the tool is moderately complex (generic input parameter, sketch context), and the description lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., active sketch, selected entities) or constraints. It is adequate but not 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?

The input schema defines a single parameter 'input_data' as a generic object with empty description, and schema coverage is 100% (one parameter described). Despite this, the tool description does not elaborate on what properties 'input_data' should contain (e.g., selected entities, centerline reference). Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, but the lack of added meaning reduces the score.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: mirroring sketch entities about a centerline. It specifies the action (mirror), the resource (sketch entities), and the reference (centerline). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sketch_linear_pattern or sketch_circular_pattern, which create patterns rather than mirrors.

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 provides useful context by stating the tool is 'essential for creating symmetric parts and reducing modeling time.' This implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer comparisons to alternative tools, such as using patterns to achieve symmetry.

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