catia_sketch_circle

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

The description says 'current sketch' but the schema includes a 'sketch' parameter that allows targeting another sketch, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior. No annotations cover these behavioral details (readOnlyHint is false, but no further annotations). The description does not disclose whether the 'sketch' parameter overrides the current sketch, nor does it mention the 'construction' parameter or coordinate system interpretation. With annotations providing little beyond mutation, the description carries the burden and falls short.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to the purpose. This is an exemplary concise description.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, sparse annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the coordinate system (H/V relative to sketch origin), the behavior of the 'sketch' parameter vs. the stated 'current sketch', and the role of 'construction'. An agent cannot reliably call the tool without assumptions, as several critical behavioral gaps remain uncovered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to any parameter; it does not explain 'center_x'/'center_y' coordinates beyond what the schema says ('Centre H/V coordinate, mm.') nor does it clarify the 'sketch' or 'construction' semantics. It neither adds value nor contradicts the schema, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a full circle') with an explicit location ('current sketch'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like catia_sketch_arc and catia_sketch_ellipse, and the 'sketch' wording distinguishes it from GSD circle tools. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied: it is meant for adding a full circle to a sketch. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like catia_sketch_arc or catia_sketch_ellipse, and no mention of prerequisites such as an active sketch or the 'sketch' parameter. The description implies usage but provides no exclusions or alternatives.

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