close_sketchRecompute a sketch to verify its degrees of freedom, returning geometry count, constraint count, open vertices, and fully constrained status.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context by listing the return fields and the DOF-status concept, but doesn't disclose edge cases, failure modes, or what 'open_vertices' means. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and return shape are both included. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The description covers the core behavior and return format, which matters because there is no output schema. However, it omits parameter semantics and any usage context, and it doesn't reconcile the 'close' title with the read-only recompute behavior. For a simple tool this is a moderate gap, not a fatal one.
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% and the description does not explain the 'sketch' parameter beyond its name and type. It doesn't say whether it expects an ID, name, or object, nor how to obtain one. The single self-descriptive parameter earns minimal credit, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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?
States a specific action ('Recompute and report DOF status') and the exact output object. It is clearly distinct from editing tools like add_sketch_constraint, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as mechanism_kinematics.
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 statement of when to call this tool, what prerequisites exist, or which alternatives to prefer. 'Recompute' implies post-edit validation, but the description never says 'use after adding constraints' or contrasts with other analysis/check tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.