Linear pattern

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

Annotations only provide the title, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the operation is a repeat with fixed spacing, which is a mutation (creating new geometry), but doesn't disclose side effects like whether the original is kept, how errors are handled, or the role of the 'validate' parameter. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key parameters. It earns its place without redundancy, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. The schema covers parameters, but the description doesn't explain the overall behavior (e.g., what 'entities' selects, how direction is determined, or what happens on validation failure). It's adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'direction' and 'fixed spacing', which are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Repeat geometry along a direction, at a fixed spacing' clearly states the verb (repeat), the resource (geometry), and the key parameters (direction, fixed spacing). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like onshape_circular_pattern, which repeats around an axis, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 implies usage for linear repetition of geometry, and the sibling list includes onshape_circular_pattern, which is the obvious alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a selected entity or direction.

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