rupa_cad_sketsa

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It reveals that every solid is checked against closed-form formulas (extrusion vs area×distance, revolve vs Pappus theorem) and that results that deviate from these references are NOT saved. It also warns about specific pitfalls that break revolve (profile crossing the axis, angle outside 0–360). This adds critical behavioral context not available in annotations.

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 information-dense but well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the unique verification mechanism, and ends with critical warnings. Every section earns its place, and the formatting (bold and clear headings) makes it scannable despite length.

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 complex tool with 23 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential conceptual framework, including verification logic and failure modes. It does not detail every parameter interaction, but the schema covers most parameter semantics. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.

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 coverage is high (87%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by explaining how key parameters are validated (e.g., extrusion compared to area×distance, revolve compared to Pappus) and highlights the pitfalls for sumbu and sudut. This enriches understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 converts 2D sketches into 3D solids via extrusion, revolve, or loft, and gives concrete examples (floor plan → walls, profile → shaft/flange/container, path → solid). It distinguishes itself from sibling CAD tools by focusing on creating solids from sketches, not boolean or fillet operations. The resource and action are specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool (to model real objects from sketches) and gives domain examples. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid or conditions for preferring other CAD tools. The differentiation is implicit through the description of what this tool uniquely does.

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