sketch_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses coordinate space, per-section truncation behavior, limit-capped sections, and status fields. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only behavior or invalid-ref handling, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded, with sections and return shape clearly separated. It is long, but the exhaustive field lists are justified because there is no output schema; it could be marginally tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the return object, section envelopes, truncation, transform cross-reference, and status. Together with the complete input schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by explaining that include selects requested sections and that limit produces truncated sections with total counts. It does not elaborate much beyond the schema, but the truncation semantics are useful.

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?

Starts with 'Full state of a sketch' and names the resource, coordinate space, and every returned section. The mention of profiles as sketch_profiles and the dimension-ref example make its scope distinguishable from listing/profile tools.

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?

Provides one concrete example (finding a dimension ref for sketch_dimension_set) and implicit guidance via the include parameter. It does not explicitly state when to choose it over sketch_list or sketch_profiles, nor any exclusions.

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