sw_linear_pattern

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail the annotations don't: nothing about how a second direction turns a row into a grid, what happens with large counts, whether the seed instance counts, or that geometry is added to the model.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. However, at this terseness for a 9-parameter mutation tool it under-serves the reader rather than being efficiently complete.

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 9-parameter, low-coverage, no-output-schema tool, the description omits the grid/second-direction semantics, the meaning of count vs count2, and any feature-selection guidance. The essentials for calling it correctly are not present.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate and it explains none of the parameters. Key fields like count2, spacing, spacing2, direction2 and features have no schema description and no mention here, leaving the grid behavior (second direction/spacing) entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Repeat features') and adds scope detail ('in a row or grid') with concrete examples (ribs, holes, slots, frame members). The 'row or grid' phrasing implicitly separates it from sw_circular_pattern and sw_sketch_pattern, but no sibling is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No statement of when to choose this over the many sibling pattern/mirror tools (sw_circular_pattern, sw_sketch_pattern, sw_curve_pattern, sw_mirror). Usage is only inferable from the word 'linear' in the name; no prerequisites, no exclusions.

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