fusion_rectangular_pattern

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds specific behavioral context: it creates copies of a body along an axis. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects or output, which is acceptable for a creation tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key parameters. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 tool is relatively simple (4 params, no output schema). The description covers the purpose, axes, and key parameters. It might benefit from mentioning that 'body' can be an integer or string, but that is in the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description bears full burden. It explains 'count' as number of copies, 'spacing' as mm apart, and axis as x/y/z. 'body' lacks additional context but is self-explanatory. The description adds significant meaning for most parameters, compensating well.

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 it patterns a body in a line along axes x/y/z, with specific parameters for count and spacing. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fusion_circular_pattern by specifying 'in a line'.

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 implies usage for linear patterns and axes. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the context of sibling tools (especially fusion_circular_pattern) provides clear differentiation. Lacks explicit exclusion but is adequate.

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