linear_pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It exposes non-obvious failure modes: passing a feature reference 'resolves to a nested link FreeCAD rejects, or silently patterns nothing', and patterning a pattern produces 'a perfectly valid solid that changed nothing, which this tool now reports as a failure rather than a success.' It even includes a verified example to clarify 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?

Though the description is lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose. It starts with a concise definition, then addresses critical pitfalls, provides a concrete example of correct usage, and ends with a neatly formatted Args list. The length is justified by the complexity of the tool and the number of potential mistakes.

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?

The description is contextually complete for an unannotated tool. It covers prerequisites (axis_sketch must own the datum), constraints (originals must be base features), failure modes (silent failures, false successes), and even a verified operational example. There is no output schema shown, but the description doesn't need to explain return values if the output schema exists elsewhere.

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 provides detailed semantics for every parameter: axis_sketch (must own the axis datum), axis (explicitly lists H_Axis/V_Axis/N_Axis), originals (must be base features, not patterns), length ('Total span of the pattern in mm'), and occurrences ('Total number of copies, including the original (>= 2)'). Even doc_name, body_name, and name are explained clearly.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Repeat features along a sketch axis (PartDesign::LinearPattern).' It uses a specific verb ('repeat') and resource ('features along a sketch axis'), and the mention of the PartDesign feature type distinguishes it from sibling tools like polar_pattern.

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 explicit usage guidance with both positive requirements and negative constraints: 'axis_sketch/axis MUST name the sketch that owns the H_Axis/V_Axis/N_Axis datum — never a feature's Profile link', 'originals MUST be base features (a Pad or Pocket), never another pattern', and a clear directive for building a grid: 'do NOT pattern a row along the perpendicular axis; put the whole row in ONE sketch'. It also gives an alternative approach using add_circle.

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