mesh_holes

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: it slices on three axes, reports blind vs through holes separately, does not classify countersinks or thread forms, and notes that it reports what cross-sections show. This goes well beyond the annotation and sets accurate expectations.

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 moderately long but front-loads the core purpose and output structure before diving into usage and caveats. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter defaults could be more compactly integrated. Structure is logical and scannable.

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 7 parameters with no schema descriptions but an output schema, the description covers most critical aspects: what it does, when to use it, behavioral quirks, and meaning of several parameters. It doesn't explain all params but the defaults and output schema fill some gaps. Overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains min_diameter/max_diameter (M2-M8 clearance, counterbores, insert pockets), min_depth (filters chamfer rings and slivers), and object_name (from show()/import_cad_file). However, it omits explanations for weld, slices, and tolerance, leaving those parameters underspecified despite having defaults.

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 finds fastener holes in a mesh by slicing on three axes, and explicitly contrasts it with find_holes() which requires real topology and fails on imported STL. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from a sibling.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when you have an imported mesh (STL) and need mounting features, while find_holes() is unsuitable. It also provides guidance on interpreting depth/through to differentiate insert seats from screw holes, effectively giving usage context.

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