hatch_polygon

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a 'real HATCH entity', which is a useful detail, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the polygon is modified, error conditions for non-closed polygons, or how layers/scale/angle are applied. This is a mutation tool with minimal transparency.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse. However, it is under-specified, which detracts from structure since it front-loads only the core action without supporting context.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 5 parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not address safety, error handling, or interaction with existing geometry. For a CAD tool that creates entities, more context is needed to avoid misuse, especially with zero annotations.

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 only mentions pattern names (ANSI31, SOLID), adding minimal insight into the 'pattern' parameter. It does not explain 'points', 'angle', 'scale', or 'layer' beyond raw schema definitions, leaving semantics 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 states the tool's function: 'Fill a closed polygon with a real HATCH entity (pattern ANSI31, SOLID, ...).' It uses a specific verb ('Fill') and resource ('closed polygon'), and mentions example patterns, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hatch_circle or hatch_islands.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites beyond 'closed polygon', or direct siblings. Users must infer usage from the tool name and schema, which is insufficient.

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