find_hole_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with count, patterns) and a constraint (each hole belongs to at most one pattern), but does not cover behavior for no patterns found, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 two sentences, efficiently packing the core logic, output structure, and an important constraint. No superfluous words; front-loaded with the main action.

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 single optional parameter and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and output format. Minor omissions like handling of no patterns found are acceptable due to the output schema's likely coverage.

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 only parameter 'object_name' is optional with default empty string. The description adds meaning by stating 'defaults to current shape', clarifying that the parameter specifies the session object. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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's function: recognizing hole patterns (bolt_circle or linear_array) from a set of holes on a session object. It specifies the criteria (≥3 identical-spec holes equally spaced on a circle or collinear at constant pitch) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like find_holes.

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 usage on a session object and mentions that make_drawing already annotates patterns automatically, which hints at when not to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidelines on when to prefer this over alternatives or prerequisites.

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