rectangular_patternCreates row and column copies of a selected Fusion 360 body by setting count and spacing values, with lengths in cm.
Pattern a body in rows and columns. Unless a parameter says otherwise, lengths and coordinates are in cm (not mm) and angles in degrees.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x_count | No | ||
| y_count | No | ||
| body_name | Yes | ||
| x_spacing | No | Spacing between columns (cm) | |
| y_spacing | No | Spacing between rows (cm) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the mutation safety profile. The description adds useful unit behavior ('cm not mm' and degrees) but omits whether the original body is preserved, what result is produced, and whether repeated calls are safe.
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?
Two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the global unit caveat second. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.
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 non-readonly CAD pattern tool, the description states purpose and units but omits selection guidance versus circular_pattern, whether new bodies are created or the original is modified, and what is returned. Annotations cover safety, but usage and outcome context remain incomplete.
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 40%: x_spacing and y_spacing have descriptions, but body_name, x_count, and y_count do not. The description clarifies default units for lengths and coordinates (cm) and angles (degrees), adding meaning beyond the schema, but it does not explain count parameters or the required body_name.
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?
States a specific verb 'Pattern' and resource 'a body' with scope 'in rows and columns', which directly distinguishes it from the sibling circular_pattern. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention circular_pattern or explain when rectangular patterning is preferable. Only unit convention is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.