sketch_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden, and it delivers the most important piece: the exact return envelope with field names (sketch ref, name, component, plane, fully_constrained, curve_count, profile_count, visible). It does not state read-only/non-mutating behavior or ordering, but the field list is substantial disclosure beyond what structured data provides.

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?

Three short lines: purpose first, return shape second, workflow example last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and where to go next. Minor gaps remain (ordering of results, whether hidden or consumed sketches are included) but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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% and the single 'component' parameter is already documented as 'Component ref; default: all components.' The description restates the same scoping idea without adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'List sketches of the design (or of one component).' The trailing example distinguishes it from siblings by naming sketch_get and sketch_profiles as the follow-up tools, so an agent knows this is the enumeration step, not a detail-fetch.

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?

Usage is implied through the example chain ('pick the sketch ref, then sketch_get / sketch_profiles'), which signals the intended workflow. However there is no explicit guidance on when to pass a component ref versus listing everything, and no mention of when a different discovery tool (e.g. inspect_tree) would be preferable.

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