Create a 2D sketch arc in a new or existing KOMPAS-3D sketch and verify the snapshot delta.
Create one 2D sketch arc in a new or existing sketch and verify the snapshot delta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| name | No | SKETCH_ARC_1 | |
| plane | No | XOY | |
| start | No | ||
| center | No | ||
| radius | No | ||
| direction | No | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| min_added | No | ||
| line_style | No | ||
| sketch_ref | No | ||
| document_id | No | ||
| create_new_sketch | No | ||
| require_no_changed | No | ||
| require_no_removed | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an arc and verifies a snapshot delta, but does not explain side effects, prerequisites (e.g., open document), or failure modes. The 'verify the snapshot delta' phrase is ambiguous and could mislead an agent about the tool's exact behavior.
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 sentence that front-loads the main action and is free of filler. However, it may be too terse given the complexity, as it omits crucial details while remaining concise.
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?
Given 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the geometry inputs, the verification mechanism, or the expected outcome, making it inadequate for 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 0% and the description does not mention any of the 15 parameters, including critical ones like start, center, end, or radius. An agent cannot infer parameter meaning, defaults, or relationships from the description. This is a major gap for a complex tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('2D sketch arc'), and scope ('new or existing sketch'), distinguishing it from sibling creation tools like create_sketch_line_segment or create_sketch_circle. The added 'verify the snapshot delta' is somewhat vague but does not obscure the core purpose.
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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as line, circle, or polyline creation. It only mentions the context of a new or existing sketch, which is a condition, not a selection rule. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.