inspect_sketch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (human-readable text + machine-readable lists) but doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only or describe error cases like sketch not found.

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 and well-structured with two focused paragraphs: one on purpose and usage, one on locating the sketch. No unnecessary detail.

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?

It covers the main use case and identification logic, but leaves parameter requirements ambiguous (e.g., elementId is required per schema but not mentioned in the description) and lacks error handling or limitation details.

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?

The schema describes 4 of 6 parameters (67% coverage). The description adds guidance on sketchFeatureId/sketchName and their optional use, but doesn't clarify documentId/workspaceId or the necessity of elementId.

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 returns a compact, structured view of a sketch's entities and constraints, and distinctively identifies it as a cheaper, scan-friendly alternative to get_features and a prerequisite for edit_sketch.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use it (before edit_sketch) and compares it to get_features, but doesn't mention other relevant alternatives like list_sketches or get_elements.

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