catia_sketch_polygon

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

Annotations only indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive, providing minimal behavioral insight. The description adds that the polygon is closed and related to a circle, but does not explain side effects like appending to a sketch, auto-constraining, or interaction with the current sketch state. With little annotation support, this leaves a meaningful gap for an agent.

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 entire description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Add a closed regular polygon') and mentions both variation options (inscribed/circumscribed). There is no redundant or optional content; every word earns its place.

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 schema fully covers parameters and there is no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple creation action. However, it does not explain how the tool locates the target sketch (e.g., default behavior, whether an active sketch is needed) or provide any usage context beyond the core action. This leaves room for an agent to misinterpret prerequisites.

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 schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds no new parameter details beyond the terms 'inscribed' and 'circumscribed', which align with the circumscribed parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 ('closed regular polygon') and highlights the inscribed/circumscribed distinction, which clearly differentiates it from sibling sketch tools like rectangle or polyline. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from other geometry creation tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catia_sketch_rectangle or catia_sketch_polyline. It also does not state prerequisites, such as needing an active sketch or how the target sketch is selected. The agent must infer usage context from the schema or sibling names.

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