Keyway: Keyed Bore (front view)

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the auto-sizing behavior but does not disclose other relevant traits like whether it creates a new entity or modifies existing ones.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every word adds value. No extraneous information.

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 output schema exists, the description covers purpose and auto-sizing. However, it omits important context like the DIN 6885 standard and what exact entity is created (e.g., a composite keyed bore).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining that keyway_width and keyway_depth can be omitted for auto-sizing. However, it does not explain center_x, center_y, bore_diameter, or layer.

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 'Bore + DIN 6885 keyway in front view', specifying the exact resource and view. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'keyway_draw_section' which handles a different view.

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 clear usage hint: 'Auto-sizes keyway from bore if width/depth omitted', guiding when to omit parameters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'keyway_draw_section'.

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