find_hole_patterns

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns (read-only analysis). Beyond annotations, the description adds value by explaining default behavior (current shape), output structure, and that holes belong to at most one pattern. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and pattern types, then efficiently covering output and behavioral caveats. No superfluous 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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, read-only, defined output schema), the description is mostly complete, covering pattern types, output structure, and hole assignment. Minor gaps remain, such as precision of 'identical-spec holes' and handling of no patterns, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct selection.

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 partially compensates by explaining that object_name defaults to the current shape. However, it does not fully detail parameter constraints, such as required format or existence checks, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 identifies hole patterns (bolt_circle and linear_array) on session objects. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'find_holes' by focusing on pattern detection rather than individual holes, and it mentions that each hole belongs to at most one pattern, reinforcing its specific scope.

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 implies the tool is for pattern detection and defaults to the current shape, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'find_holes'. The note about make_drawing annotating automatically hints at redundancy, but no clear when-not or alternative comparisons are provided.

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