sw_sketch_info

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses the return content (segments, contours, dimensions, definition state) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about failure modes, whether the sketch must be open for editing, or what 'definition state' means output-wise.

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 dense line with no filler, and the return contents come before the usage hint. It borders on too terse — the fragmentary list style omits the connective information that would make it a complete sentence.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does outline what comes back, which is the main thing an agent needs. It still leaves the required sketch identifier unexplained and gives no note on what happens if the sketch is ambiguous or not found.

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?

Coverage is 50%: 'doc' is documented in the schema, but the required 'sketch' parameter has no schema description and the tool description only alludes to 'a sketch' without explaining how to identify it (name format, ambiguity handling, active-sketch default). The description does not compensate for the gap on the one mandatory parameter.

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?

Names the resource (a sketch) and enumerates exactly what is reported: segments, closed contours, dimensions, and definition state. The telegraphic phrasing has no explicit verb like 'inspect' or 'get', but the intent is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings such as sw_list_dimensions or sw_list_entities.

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?

'Check a profile before using it' gives one concrete trigger — pre-flight validation of a sketch profile. It does not name alternatives (e.g., use sw_list_dimensions for dimensions only) or state when this tool is unnecessary, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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