find_circular_faces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry disclosure. It mentions potential false positives and timeouts via the reference to find_circular_holes, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or performance guarantees. The cross-reference adds transparency but is indirect.

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 concise and front-loaded, using two short paragraphs to convey purpose and key caveats. The language is efficient, and every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. It provides typical use cases and references important pitfalls, but given the complexity of the operation and its 5 parameters, the failure to explain most parameters and the heavy reliance on a cross-reference leave it incomplete.

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 coverage, the description must explain all parameters, but it only touches on min_loop_points and min_area, and even then via cross-reference. It omits explanations for min_radius, max_circularity_error, and file_path, leaving the agent without guidance on these critical inputs.

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 it detects facets whose entire boundary is a circle, with typical examples (flat top of cylindrical boss/pad, bottom of blind hole). It distinguishes from the sibling find_circular_holes by focusing on faces rather than holes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides typical use cases and implicit selection criteria (circular faces vs holes), and strategically cross-references find_circular_holes' docstring for parameter rationale. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or alternative commands, relying on the sibling context.

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