sweep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It hints at sweep behavior (frame turns smoothly along path) but does not cover key behaviors such as caps (default true), closed option, return value, or side effects. With 9 params and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then explains key parameters. It is efficient and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with separate sentences per parameter.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far from complete. It covers only a few parameters and provides no details on required parameters (name, path), defaults, or the return value. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional inference.

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 explains radii (one radius per point, taper), profile (closed 2D polygon [[right, up], ...], default circle with sides), and up (starting up direction). However, it omits several parameters: name, path, caps, sides, closed, radius. The explanation adds value for some params but is incomplete.

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 (pull a cross-section) and resource (along a path of world points), and gives concrete example use cases (pipes, cables, railings). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like loft or extrude_profile, which could cause confusion.

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 explains what parameters do but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like loft, extrude_profile, or radial_array. There are no exclusions or conditions given.

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