Linear Pattern

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, so the description needs to clarify mutation semantics. It adds that occurrences 'Includes the original' and that it repeats a feature, which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects like whether the original is preserved or how the pattern interacts with existing geometry, and it omits the 'reversed' parameter's behavioral impact. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description adds moderate value.

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 front-loaded with the core action. It then presents parameter details in a structured, scannable format with clear examples. There is minimal wasted text, and the important constraint (occurrences >=2, includes original) is emphasized. Slightly more structure (like separating parameter definitions) could improve readability, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most semantically complex ones but omits 'feature' (required) and 'reversed'. It also does not explain what the tool returns or any prerequisites (e.g., must have a selected PartDesign feature). While an agent may infer return behavior from the name, the missing required parameter semantics is a notable gap. It is adequate for a moderately complex tool but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains direction (with syntax for axes and edge-aligned), length (units), and occurrences (minimum count, includes original). It does not explain 'feature' (the required parameter) or 'reversed', leaving those ambiguous. This is partial compensation: it covers three key parameters but misses two, including the required one.

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 clear, specific action: 'Repeat a PartDesign feature linearly along a direction.' It identifies the resource (PartDesign feature) and the operation (linear repetition), and distinguishes visually from siblings like polar_pattern or mirrored by the explicit linear-direction emphasis. An agent can immediately understand the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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 explains the direction syntax and constraints but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like polar_pattern or mirrored. It implies linear pattern usage but offers no exclusion or selection guidance. An agent may infer it from the name and direction options, but the description itself lacks explicit 'when to use vs. when not to use' guidance.

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