catia_rect_pattern

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

The description clearly indicates the tool creates a repeated feature (a mutation), consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It adds important behavioral context by explaining that directions must be real elements (e.g., 'edge#1') rather than axis names, which is a functional requirement. Since annotations are minimal, this transparency is valuable.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed: the purpose is front-loaded and the direction guidance is given in a single additional sentence. No redundant information or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and the trickiest parameter behavior. It doesn't mention return values or side effects, but those are not essential given the schema's robustness. It could note that it creates a feature in the tree, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already describes all 10 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds significant semantic value by illustrating the direction parameters ('edge#1') and explaining the empty-default behavior, clarifying the most nuanced parameters beyond the schema's basic 'Reference token' descriptions.

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 states a clear, specific action: 'Repeat a feature on a rectangular grid.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like catia_circ_pattern (circular) and catia_user_pattern (user-defined). It also explains the critical direction-token requirement, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implicitly guides usage by specifying it is for rectangular grids, and it explicitly explains how to provide directions (reference tokens of edges/lines, not axis names) and that leaving a direction empty uses CATIA's default. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over the circular or user pattern alternatives, though the name and description imply it.

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