hole_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the probe geometry, the throwaway copy, what counts as blocked, volume as blockage measure, one-round-trip execution, and that the part is never modified. This is exemplary 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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by mechanics, a motivating anecdote, and a safety note. It is longer than strictly necessary—the 'born from' story could be trimmed—but it remains focused and each part contributes 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the algorithm, side effects, performance, use case, and parameter semantics in a way that an agent can confidently invoke it.

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 deeply explains the 'holes' parameter with its field meanings (name, x,y,z, axis, r, len) and the constraint that r is smaller than the hole's radius. However, it ignores 'handle' entirely, and schema coverage is 0%, so the missing handle is a gap.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Probe every hole of a part and say which are actually OPEN.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like contact_report or overhang_report by focusing on hole verification.

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 a concrete scenario ('a drawing lies about its holes unless something physically probes them') that implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. That fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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