unfold_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not reveal whether the pattern is mutated in place, duplicated, or merely displayed, nor what happens if the selected line is not a valid symmetry or fold line. These are material uncertainties for an agent performing a destructive-looking 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 a single front-loaded sentence with an informative example, and every word earns its place. It is concise and not padded, even though it leaves semantic gaps that are penalized in other dimensions.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context. It conveys the general operation but omits essential details: the meaning of half_symmetry, valid line types, return behavior, and side effects. An agent could not confidently invoke this 3-parameter mutation tool based on this definition alone.

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 clarify the three parameters. It hints at pattern_index ('a half pattern') and line_index ('one of its lines'), but it completely fails to explain half_symmetry, and none of the parameters gets precise semantics or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Unfold a half pattern across one of its lines,' and gives a concrete example ('centre-front fold line'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling operations like flip_pattern or mirror_pattern, so it misses the highest bar.

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 phrasing 'half pattern' and 'centre-front fold line' implies the intended use case: completing a symmetric half-pattern. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as flip_pattern or mirror_pattern, and it provides no exclusions or conditions.

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