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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'changes nothing' is consistent but redundant. It adds no further behavioral context, such as what a measurement returns, how overlap/overflow are defined, or whether results are scoped to an artboard or selection.

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 a single front-loaded sentence of seven words with no filler. Every phrase contributes to the stated purpose and the read-only guarantee.

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?

For a seven-parameter measurement tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how to scope the inspection using target/artboard/shape_ids, what containment settings mean, or what the agent should expect back.

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?

There are seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain any of them. It gives no clue how group, target, artboard, shape_ids, containment, ignore_pairs or min_font_size affect the measurement, leaving the agent to infer everything from bare types and enums.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Measure', and names three concrete resources: overlap, overflow and alignment. This distinguishes it from mutating siblings such as apply_layout_fixes, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from related inspection tools like measure_text, inspect_path or resolve_overflow.

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 phrase 'changes nothing' implies a read-only diagnostic use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over apply_layout_fixes, resolve_overflow, check_contrast or measure_text. No prerequisites, exclusions or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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