find_circular_holes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the false-positive failure mode (cyclic quadrilaterals) and the performance risk ('slow enough to time out an MCP client') when min_area is not applied, plus the default heuristic 4*pi*min_radius**2. This goes well beyond a generic read-only description, though it does not fully describe the output structure or file requirements.

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 and uses three tight paragraphs, each earning its place: behavior, the false-positive trap, and the performance safeguard. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 an output schema exists and no annotations, the description covers purpose, false positives, and performance timeout risk, making it largely complete for a detection tool. It misses guidance on max_circularity_error semantics and explicit differentiation from find_circular_faces, but is still robust.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates substantially for min_loop_points and min_area, explaining the rectangle false-positive trap and the performance rationale. However, max_circularity_error is left unexplained, and min_radius is only implied through the min_area formula, so the compensation is not complete.

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 first sentence specifies the operation ('Detect circular through-holes / blind-hole rims') and the target resource ('sitting inside a flat facet'), and clarifies the result unit as 'one inner boundary loop of a facet that fits a circle well.' This clearly differentiates from sibling find_circular_faces by focusing on holes/rims rather than faces.

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 opening sentence gives clear context for when to use the tool: finding circular holes or blind-hole rims in flat facets. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the parameter discussion (e.g., using min_loop_points to avoid rectangle false positives) provides practical selection guidance.

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