circular_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that the tool mutates the part, requires a reference axis, returns a new Feature with a name, and explains how count includes the original. It covers key behaviors like angle defaults and spacing options, though it could mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing features).

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, use cases, prerequisites, detailed parameter list, and examples. It is slightly verbose (e.g., repeated explanation of total_angle_deg in both text and example), but the organization makes it easy to parse.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It includes prerequisites, parameter details, return value, and multiple examples covering common scenarios (bolt circle, partial arc). No major gaps are evident.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters: feature_names (exact names from get_active_part_info), axis_name (from create_reference_axis), count (>=2, includes original), total_angle_deg (default 360, partial arcs), equal_spacing (True/False meaning), and reverse (direction). Examples clarify usage.

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 'repeat features around an axis' and lists standard autoparts uses (bolt circles, fan blades, etc.). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like linear_pattern or mirror_feature, but the name and examples make the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Always preceded by a create_reference_axis call') and explains when to use equal_spacing=False for 'every 30 degrees' cases. It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives (e.g., when to use add_bolt_circle instead), but the examples illustrate typical usage patterns.

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