nx_linear_pattern

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention key traits: the original body is kept, instances are independent (not united), and spacing is in mm. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like performance implications with large counts (max 1000), whether the pattern is associative/parametric, or what happens if the body_id is invalid. The schema provides constraints but not behavior. This leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise, with three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, key semantics, and a critical caveat. It is front-loaded with the primary action and axis. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 cad tool with 5 parameters to infer the correct behavior. The description covers the main semantics but lacks information on the 'reverse' parameter and potential errors (e.g., invalid body_id) or output structure (though output schema exists). The tool is moderately complex (pattern with multiple axes and merging behavior), and the description is adequate but not exhaustive, missing minor but useful context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'count' as total including original (count=4 yields 4 bodies) and 'spacing' as per-instance delta in mm, adding meaning beyond the schema titles. However, it does not clarify the 'direction' parameter's values (X/Y/Z are self-explanatory) or 'reverse' semantics, which the schema already defines with defaults. The description covers the core parameters but leaves some to be inferred.

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 ('Pattern'), a specific resource ('a body'), and the axis options ('X/Y/Z'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'nx_circular_pattern' by specifying 'linearly'. This is clear and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: patterning linearly, versus circular alternatives. It also gives a critical usage note that the new instances are NOT united, and directs use of 'nx_unite' if merging is required. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool beyond the circular alternative, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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