Discover supported shapes, layout algorithms, directions, and resource limits so you can select valid diagram options and avoid unsupported layout settings.
Discover Sketchwright's supported shapes, layout algorithms, directions, and resource limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Discover' strongly implies a read-only lookup and the listed categories clarify what is returned, but it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, auth requirements, or whether results are cached/static.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. Every listed capability category adds information.
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 zero-parameter capability-discovery tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates the capability categories an agent will receive. The main gap is that it does not say how this discovery step should feed into the sibling diagram tools.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.
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 ('Discover') and concrete resources (shapes, layout algorithms, directions, resource limits). It is clearly distinct in kind from the diagram-manipulation siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with them.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'Discover' — an agent can infer this is a metadata lookup, but the description does not say when to call it (e.g., before create/layout), when not to, or how it relates to the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.