catia_sketch_polyline

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by noting that 'Shared end points are created explicitly,' which is a meaningful side-effect detail. It also explains the optional closing behavior. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the extra detail about endpoint creation is valuable and not redundant.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second sentence adds a concrete benefit. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 low complexity and the complete parameter schema, the description covers the essential behavior and use case. It does not mention prerequisites like having an active sketch, but the 'sketch' parameter and schema cover that. No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Minor gap around prerequisites but otherwise complete.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mostly restates the 'closed' parameter as 'optionally closing it back to the first point' and does not add new meaning to the 'points' or 'sketch' parameters. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the action: 'Add a chain of connected lines through a list of points, optionally closing it back to the first point.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying 'chain of connected lines' and the closed-polyline use case for pad/pocket profiles, which separates it from single-line, spline, and polygon 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 a concrete use case ('immediately usable as a pad or pocket profile') and implies when to use it (when a connected chain of lines is needed). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as preferring a spline for smooth curves or a polygon for a closed figure.

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