find_holes

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

Annotations indicate readonly, and the description adds significant behavioral detail: grouping of coaxial cylinders, exclusion of threads and non-cylindrical features, and how countersinks are handled. This adds value beyond 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 reasonably concise for the detail provided, front-loading the purpose. Some details about output JSON could be abbreviated, but overall structure is effective.

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 has one optional parameter, an output schema (partially described), and sibling tools, the description thoroughly covers behavior, return format, and recognition rules, leaving little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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%, and the description only mentions that object_name defaults to the current shape. It does not explain how to specify other objects, the expected value type, or constraints, leaving substantial ambiguity.

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 drilled holes, defaults to the current shape, and lists specific grouping rules. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_countersinks and find_bosses by detailing what is and isn't recognized.

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 mentions parameter defaulting but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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