sew_lines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action and mentions a remedy for twisted seams, but does not disclose whether the operation modifies original lines, is reversible, or produces any return value. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a single troubleshooting sentence, then a clear, alphabetized parameter list. Every sentence adds value without 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?

While it covers the core usage and all parameters, it omits the return value, side effects, and error conditions. Given the tool's complexity (8 params, no annotations, no output schema), these gaps leave an agent uncertain about the operation's outcome and reversibility.

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 explain all parameters. It does so clearly for all 8 parameters, including the optional internal_shape overrides and direction booleans. It could define 'outline line' and 'forward' more precisely, but the reference to get_pattern_geometry helps.

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 action: 'Sew one line to another (segment sewing)' – a specific verb and resource. It also points to get_pattern_geometry for line indices, distinguishing its input source without needing to compare to siblings.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Get line indices from get_pattern_geometry') and a practical troubleshooting tip about twisted seams, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. Since no sibling tool directly competes for segment sewing, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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