Get sketch geometry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the specific return content (entities and solved geometry), which is useful context. It doesn't disclose additional behaviors like pagination or error conditions, but with the safety profile covered, this is a reasonable baseline.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core capability. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse, though it could optionally mention the optional parameter's effect more explicitly.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent will receive. It mentions 'entities and solved geometry' but not their structure or any caveats. For a straightforward read-only tool with well-defined inputs, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the response format.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the 'sketch' parameter's format or how the 'elem' refers to a Part Studio tab. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the resource (sketch entities and solved geometry) and scope (all sketches in a Part Studio or one sketch), distinguishing it from other get_* tools by its specific focus. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', and doesn't contrast with siblings, though the name already implies a getter.

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 usage is implied: if you need sketch geometry, this is the tool. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, mention when not to use it, or note any prerequisites. For a simple getter this is acceptable but not ideal.

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