dxf_hatch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it appends (additive, not overwrite), auto-creates the file if absent, supports only polygon boundaries, and recommends splitting complex boundaries. It omits any permission/auth requirements and the return behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and file-creation behavior, then a well-organized field-by-field layout. The pattern-name list is long but each entry adds concrete selectable value; nothing is padded.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is quite complete for invoking the tool: it explains the required hatch structure, defaults, and boundary limitations. Missing only the meaning of path/dxfversion and the return value.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it thoroughly documents the nested hatches dict (points required, pattern/scale/angle semantics, layer/color, default values, and a concrete list of pattern names). It leaves the top-level path and dxfversion parameters essentially undocumented, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (append a HATCH fill to a DXF drawing) and adds the important auto-create-file behavior. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dxf_draw and dxf_create without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear practical applicability context: hatch is for filling closed areas and only polygon boundaries are supported, with complex boundaries to be split into multiple hatches. It does not name an explicit alternative tool (e.g. dxf_draw) or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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