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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond a terse purpose. It does not say whether an unknown dimension yields an empty set or an error, whether the result is paginated, or whether the operation has any side effects.

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?

One sentence with a bracketed category tag up front — efficient and front-loaded, with nothing that could be trimmed. It is terse rather than wasteful, though the terse form is part of why the other dimensions suffer.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description is the only guidance available and it is not nearly enough. An agent cannot confidently predict the return shape or the meaning of a valid dimension value from this text alone.

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% and the single parameter has no schema-level documentation, but the description does imply that 'dimension' identifies the scaffold member whose axes are returned. That is a genuine, if minimal, semantic contribution, though it adds no format, syntax, or validity constraints.

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?

It states a find-style purpose and a resource (the axes attached to a given scaffold member), but the domain vocabulary — 'scaffold member', 'dimension' — is opaque and undefined. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling grid_axis, which appears to operate on the same conceptual territory.

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 '[FIND · internal]' tag hints that this belongs to a read/lookup family, but there is no statement of when to call this versus grid_axis or any other lookup sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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