Measure Distance

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, and it adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying 'Euclidean distance,' signaling a pure mathematical calculation rather than a geometric entity measurement. It does not mention units or drawing-plane assumptions, but the annotations already cover the safety and side-effect profile.

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 with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

This is a simple two-point distance calculation with a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, so the description is mostly sufficient. The only missing piece is explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus naming sibling measurement alternatives, but the low operational complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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%, with each of the four parameters already described as 'Point 1 X,' 'Point 2 X,' etc. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Measure') and a precise object ('Euclidean distance between two points'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analysis_measure_area or analysis_measure_entity. The mention of 'Euclidean' also defines the exact math operation rather than leaving it vague.

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 'between two points' implies the tool is appropriate when the user has two coordinate pairs and wants straight-line distance, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as analysis_measure_entity or analysis_measure_area. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or exclusion of other measurement tools.

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