mirror_feature

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it explains the geometry_pattern parameter (exact copy vs recompute), lists acceptable plane aliases including bilingual support, and describes the return value with an example.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers all aspects: parameter types, allowed values, behavioral nuances, return value, and a practical example. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description provides detailed semantics for all three parameters: feature_names requires exact names from get_active_part_info with examples, mirror_plane lists all acceptable forms (default plane aliases, user planes, planar face names), and geometry_pattern explains its behavioral impact.

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 the tool mirrors features about a plane or planar face, with specific use cases for symmetric geometry. It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_pattern or circular_pattern which create pattern copies, not 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 explicit use cases (symmetric brackets, mirrored mounting bosses) and states it's for parts where half is modeled. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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