Calculate the distance between two points in a CAD drawing by providing their X/Y/Z coordinates. Helps verify dimensions and spacing for accurate technical designs.
Measure distance between two points.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| point_a | Yes | ||
| point_b | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the operation but omits critical behavioral details: units, coordinate system (2D vs 3D, handling of optional z), output format, and whether the distance is Euclidean. It is minimal.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it is perhaps overly terse for a tool with nuanced behavior, but it is structurally efficient.
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 nested object parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits essential details such as what a 'point' entails (coordinates, optional z), how distance is computed, and what the result represents. An agent would need to infer much.
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 should compensate. It merely says 'between two points', which implies two point parameters but does not explain the coordinate structure (x, y, required; z optional) or the format of the points. It adds little beyond the schema's own property names.
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 ('Measure') and resource ('distance') and scopes it to 'two points'. It distinguishes from some siblings by specifying points, but does not differentiate from related tools like measure_minimum_distance. Clear enough for an agent to know what it does.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as measure_minimum_distance or other measurement tools. The description provides no context, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.