list_sketches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation returns ALL sketches with specific diagnostic fields and implies a read-only list operation. It could add more detail about return formatting or status values, but for a non-destructive list tool the behavior is largely clear.

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 only two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and output are front-loaded, and the usage note is appended efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and parameters. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it, but it does not compensate for the two undocumented required parameters or clarify return format, status semantics, or error conditions. Adequate for a simple list tool, but with clear gaps.

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 33%; only elementId has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance, so documentId and workspaceId remain effectively undocumented except by their names. The low schema coverage is not compensated in the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List every sketch in a Part Studio' and enumerates the returned fields (featureId, name, status, entity/constraint counts). It clearly differentiates from the sibling inspect_sketch by positioning this as the selection step.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use to pick the right sketch before drilling in with inspect_sketch.' It names the related sibling and provides a clear decision context, leaving no ambiguity about its role in the workflow.

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