solve_sketch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the basic transformation but omits whether the tool is pure or mutating, what happens with unsolvable constraints, whether OpenSCAD is returned as text or a file, and what the solved coordinates look like.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and has no wasted words. However, for a solver with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, it is too terse to be considered appropriately sized.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage, the description should do more to explain inputs, outputs, and failure behavior. It supplies only a one-line purpose statement, leaving important invocation details missing.

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 50%: the required sketch parameter has no schema description, and extrude_height only says the default is 0.0. The description does not explain the sketch format, constraint syntax, units, or how extrude_height affects the result.

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 names a specific transformation: taking a 2D sketch with stated relationships and producing solved coordinates plus OpenSCAD. That is more than a restatement of the name, but it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as solve_template_constraints or compile_scad.

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 implies usage for solving constrained 2D sketches, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must guess whether this is the right tool versus other constraint-solving or SCAD compilation tools.

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