find_countersinks

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: excludes drill-point cones and edge chamfers, returns specific JSON structure, and explains the default for object_name. No contradictions.

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 multi-sentence but each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, definition, exclusions, return format, parameter. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, output schema present, readOnlyHint), the description is complete. It explains what countersinks are, what is excluded, JSON return structure, and parameter behavior. No missing critical information.

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 fully compensates by explaining the single parameter 'object_name': it references a named object from show() and defaults to current shape. This provides essential meaning beyond the schema's type and 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 identifies the tool's purpose: recognizing countersinks on a session object. It specifies the resource (session object), the action (recognise), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'find_holes', which reports only as plain openings.

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 context on default behavior (current shape) and contrasts with 'find_holes', but does not explicitly state when to use versus other shape analysis tools like 'find_bosses' or 'analyze_printability'. It implies usage for countersink detection but lacks explicit alternatives.

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