hatch_islands

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys the core hatching action and the role of islands, but it does not mention whether a new hatch entity is created or an existing one is modified, nor how layer, scale, angle, and pattern affect the result. These gaps matter for a tool that likely mutates the drawing.

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, lean sentence that front-loads the primary action and seamlessly integrates parameter formats. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and core inputs, with no filler or 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?

Given the six-parameter schema, the description covers only the essential geometry and leaves out behavioral nuances such as return values or error conditions (though an output schema exists). It is adequate for a straightforward hatch operation but lacks depth for a tool dealing with polygon nesting and potential edge cases.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the two required parameters (outer and islands) with concrete coordinate structures, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic arrays. However, it does not describe angle, layer, scale, or pattern, although these have defaults and likely behave as standard hatch settings.

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 'HATCH' with a clear resource: the outer closed polygon while skipping island polygons. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hatch_polygon and hatch_circle by explicitly stating the 'hatch around holes' behavior. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 implies usage for hatching a region with holes by stating 'SKIPPING the island polygons' and provides the expected coordinate formats. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for a CAD-savvy agent to discern appropriate scenarios.

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