sketch_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses units in mm, the grid/circle layout behavior, angle semantics, and that slots/rectangles rotate with circular patterns, but it does not state side effects on existing sketch geometry, permissions, or whether prior entities are preserved.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured into Grid, Circle, and Args sections. Despite covering a 17-parameter tool, every section earns its place and avoids 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?

Given the complexity of a 17-parameter geometry tool, the description covers the essential shape types, layout modes, rotation semantics, and sketch targeting. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the main remaining gap is the rule that chooses between grid and circular patterns.

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 only 6%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines x/y as the first copy position, dx/dy as pitch, rows/columns/count, pcd and start_angle for circular patterns, shape dimensions, angle, and sketch_index. It still leaves ambiguity about how Grid versus Circle mode is selected when both sets of parameters are present.

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 states that this creates many copies of one sketch shape in a grid or circular layout and gives concrete examples such as vent slots, hole grids, and bolt circles. It is specific about the resource and operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as circular_pattern or draw_slot.

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 explains the two layout modes, Grid and Circle, and gives practical examples of when each pattern style is useful. It provides clear usage context, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over related siblings or when not to use it.

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