design_distribute_along_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only discloses the distribution method. It does not state whether the tool creates/mutates points on the canvas, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions or side effects apply, or what is returned.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity means it provides no structural signposting for a five-parameter tool.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits usage guidance, parameter semantics, side effects, and return behavior, leaving the agent to infer too much before invoking it.

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 60%, leaving two parameters (count, closed) undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the path itself and does not clarify how spacing, offset, and count interact, so it 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 description states a specific verb ('Distribute'), resource ('points'), and domain ('along a polyline'), and adds an implementation detail ('arc-length parameterization'). It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as design_distribute_points or design_preview_distribution, so the agent cannot infer relative purpose from the description alone.

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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like design_distribute_points, design_pack_circles, or design_preview_distribution, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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