cad_sketch_pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'Copies are geometric (not a live-linked pattern)' and states the return format '{originalId: [copyIds...]}'. This goes beyond the schema, but it does not mention potential side effects like permission requirements or whether the operation is reversible.

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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured, front-loading the purpose then detailing each kind. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core pattern logic and return format. However, it omits guidance on entityIds (presumably sketch entities) and sessionId, and does not address error cases or prerequisites. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the context for direction, spacing, center, and angle, and clarifies that count includes the original. However, it does not describe the required parameters sessionId or entityIds (which are likely standard but should be mentioned for clarity). This leaves a gap for new users.

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 it repeats sketch lines/circles as geometric copies, specifying the resource and action. It mentions two kinds (linear, circular) but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like cad_pattern (for 3D patterns) or cad_sketch_mirror, which slightly reduces differentiation.

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 provides explicit usage guidance for each kind: 'kind=linear needs direction=[dx,dy] + spacing (inches between instances); kind=circular needs center=[cx,cy] + angle (degrees between instances)'. It also explains that count includes the original. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, missing a clear exclusion clause.

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