Recompute a sketch's degrees-of-freedom status to finalize it, reporting geometry count, constraint count, open vertices, and whether it is fully constrained.
Recompute and report DOF status. Returns {geometry_count, constraint_count, open_vertices, fully_constrained}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sketch | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does say it recomputes and reports DOF status and lists a return shape, but it does not disclose whether this mutates the sketch, whether it finalizes/closes it (as the name implies), what permissions or state are needed, or side effects.
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?
It is short and front-loads the core action, but the second sentence is a raw return-shape listing that would be better placed in an output schema. Still, the text is not padded.
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?
For a sketch-finalization/DOF tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It omits the tool's actual behavior and leaves the agent guessing about the primary parameter.
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 0% for the single required 'sketch' parameter, and the description gives no information about it (e.g., what form of identifier it expects). The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 name suggests closing a sketch, but the description says 'Recompute and report DOF status' – it never states the tool closes or finalizes a sketch. This is confusing for an agent choosing among sketch tools, and the description does not distinguish it from the many other sketch/analysis siblings.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no prerequisites, no context, and no comparison to siblings like add_sketch_constraint or solve_capabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.