get_pattern_geometry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose substantial behavior: line lengths, start/end points, seam coverage, sewn_together pairing, twisted-seam handling, and pocket fold-over behavior. It does not explicitly state 'this is read-only/no side effects,' though 'Get' plus the preparatory framing implies it.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, explaining seam semantics that are essential for correct downstream use. It front-loads the main purpose and usage, then parameter details. It is somewhat long, but the complexity of the returned geometry justifies the 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description comprehensively explains what is returned, the meaning of line_index, coordinate units, seam pairing rules, and parameter effects. It gives an agent enough context to correctly call the tool and interpret its output for sewing and editing workflows.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains pattern_index as filtering to one piece and its touching seams (default all), and include_points as adding every point of every line with a larger-output warning. This meaningfully exceeds the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get pattern pieces with numbered outline lines, internal shapes and all seams.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_pattern_info and get_pattern_list by framing it as the source of line_index values for line-based editing and sewing tools.

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 says 'Use this before sewing or editing lines' and explains why, since every line-based tool takes the line_index values returned here. It gives a clear use context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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