hatch_circle

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 does disclose the key side effect of creating both the circle boundary and the hatch, but it omits other behavioral details such as reliance on the current layer, use of default pattern/scale/angle, or any destructive implications. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 no wasted words. It states the core purpose and the important boundary-creation side effect in a compact form.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no annotations, and despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the parameter semantics or differentiate from closely related sibling tools (draw_circle, hatch_polygon). The one-line description leaves significant gaps for confident invocation.

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?

The description provides no explicit parameter explanations. cx, cy, and radius can be inferred from 'circular area', but angle, layer, scale, and pattern are not described, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 object: 'Hatch a circular area', and the parenthetical 'creates the circle boundary + HATCH' clearly distinguishes it from merely drawing a circle (draw_circle) and from hatching an existing polygon (hatch_polygon).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like draw_circle and hatch_polygon are not mentioned, and the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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