get_sketch_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details the return values (list of constraints with types, values, status, etc.) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The absence of such behavioral context is a gap, though the diagnostic nature hints at safety.

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 well-structured with a leading summary, a list of return contents, a usage statement, and parameter details. It is reasonably concise for the amount of detail, though a minor reduction in verbosity could improve conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values covering constraints and geometry. Parameters are fully described, and usage context is provided. For a diagnostic tool with two parameters, this is complete and leaves no significant gaps.

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 input schema provides only parameter names and types with 0% description coverage. The tool description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'name: Sketch object name (e.g., 'Sketch001'). doc_name: Document name. Empty string uses the active document.' This adds essential semantic meaning.

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 tool performs 'deep inspection of a sketch's constraint health' and enumerates specific outputs (constraint count, geometry count, degrees of freedom, etc.). It distinguishes itself as the primary diagnostic tool for sketch problems, differentiating it from siblings like 'analyze_shape' or 'inspect_object'.

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 explicitly positions the tool as 'the primary diagnostic tool for sketch problems — over-constrained, under-constrained, or conflicting sketches,' providing clear context on when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the use case is well-defined.

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