bolt_circle

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 discloses that positions are computed server-side and that it's a single call, but it does not state what geometric entities are actually created (e.g., circles for holes, PCD circle, center marks) or any side effects. Given parameters like 'pcd_circle' and 'marks', these behaviors are likely but undisclosed.

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 extremely brief, but for a tool with 9 parameters and no other documentation, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The phrase 'positions computed server-side; one call' is useful but does not compensate for the lack of essential details.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 5 required, no annotations) and that an output schema exists, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the function's full behavior, parameter meaning, prerequisites, or return values. The agent cannot correctly select and invoke this tool based on the provided description 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 compensate. It explains 'pcd' as pitch-circle diameter and 'N' as the count, but it does not explain cx, cy, hole_dia, start_angle, layer, marks, or pcd_circle. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 indicates the tool creates holes arranged on a pitch-circle diameter (PCD), which distinguishes it from ordinary circle or point drawing tools. It doesn't use an explicit verb like 'creates' or 'draws', but 'N holes on a pitch-circle diameter' makes the purpose evident and distinct from siblings like draw_circle or array_polar.

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 phrase 'one call' hints at efficiency for creating multiple holes in a single operation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., draw_circle repeatedly or array_polar). No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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