text-to-model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool creates sketch geometry but omits critical behavioral details: whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwriting existing geometry), permission requirements, error handling for invalid SVG files, or typical output format. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action and target, the second explains the outcome. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error conditions) and output details, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly. The purpose is clear, but other dimensions are under-specified.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying SVG file import and sketch plane usage, which is already evident from parameter names and schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Import an SVG file as sketch curves') and the resource ('onto a sketch plane'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'import_dxf' or 'create_sketch'. It explicitly mentions the outcome ('sketch geometry that can be extruded or used as profiles'), providing a complete purpose statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'import_dxf' or 'create_sketch' for geometry creation. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing sketch plane) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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