cad_sketch_rectangle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the rectangle is 'constrained' and returns line IDs, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing geometry) or requirements (e.g., active sketch). Minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to address missing context.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It specifies the return format but omits crucial context like the need for an active sketch (suggested by sibling tools like cad_sketch_begin). The behavioral transparency and guidelines gaps reduce completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the meaning of corner1 and corner2 beyond being arrays. It fails to clarify they are 2D points or the rectangle orientation. This leaves ambiguity despite the simple parameter structure.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'a constrained rectangle', distinguishing it from sibling sketch tools like cad_sketch_line or cad_sketch_circle. The return format is also specified.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cad_sketch_polyline for unconstrained rectangles). No mention of prerequisites like an active sketch.

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