find_countersinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the geometric definition of countersinks, exclusion criteria, and the return JSON structure. This is more than minimal and gives good insight into behavior.

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 detailed but efficient, with each sentence adding value: geometry definition, sibling contrast, exclusion, return format, parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the action and default.

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 simple input (one optional parameter) and the output schema being described in text, the description covers input, output, exclusions, and behavior thoroughly. It is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description explains the object_name parameter, including its default and how it refers to objects from show(). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's title.

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 recognizes countersinks on a session object, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling find_holes tool, which reports only plain openings, providing a clear differentiator.

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 explains when to use the tool (for countersink detection vs. plain holes), specifies default behavior (current shape), and describes the object_name parameter. It excludes drill-point cones and external edge chamfers, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the implied find_holes.

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