find_holes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses extensive behavioral details: grouping of coaxial cylinders, exclusion of threads and non-cylindrical features, return format with field semantics (drill-point cone excluded, countersinks as openings). This is thorough and honest.

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?

Description is a single paragraph that is front-loaded with purpose. It is information-dense without being verbose, though could be slightly more concise by breaking into bullet points for readability. Every sentence adds value.

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 and a detailed return format (described fully in the description), the description covers all necessary context. The output schema existence is leveraged by the description providing exact field names and types, making the tool usage clear.

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?

Only one parameter 'object_name' with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds value by explaining default behavior ('defaults to current shape') when parameter is empty. This compensates well for the schema gap, though could explicitly state that object_name specifies the session object or shape.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('recognise drilled holes') and resource ('on a session object, defaults to current shape'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_bosses' and 'find_hole_patterns' by specifying hole-specific grouping logic and what counts as a hole. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

Description implies use when hole detection is needed and mentions default behavior (current shape), but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool suggestions. No comparison to sibling tools like 'find_hole_patterns' for pattern recognition.

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