Measure the minimum distance between two CATIA V5 geometry elements, such as features, faces, edges, or points, and return the result in millimeters.
Measure the minimum distance between two geometry elements. Returns distance in mm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| element1 | Yes | Name of first element (feature, face, edge, point) | |
| element2 | Yes | Name of second element |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the return unit (mm), which the annotations and schema do not provide, but says nothing about tolerances, failure cases, or whether geometry must be pre-selected/active.
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?
Two sentences, no waste, with the action first and the return unit second. Everything present earns its place.
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, the description correctly discloses the returned quantity and unit, which is the key missing piece. The main gap is the absence of any routing versus the sibling catia_measure_model, but for a simple read-only measurement the definition is otherwise sufficient.
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 100% and the two parameters are documented there, including the element type examples (feature, face, edge, point). The description adds no naming-format or resolution detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (minimum distance between two geometry elements), which is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling catia_measure_model, so an agent must guess which measure tool applies.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as catia_measure_model or catia_get_bounding_box. The agent gets the purpose but must infer the selection context on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.