Dimension: Auto (chain / baseline / ordinate)

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

The annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining the tool's effect. It adds useful context by stating the ISO 129 standard and the LINE-only limitation, but it does not disclose what happens with unsupported entity types, whether dimensions are created as new drawing objects, or how multiple entities are handled if some are invalid.

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 short sentences deliver the core action, the scope, and the key limitation without redundancy. The essential behavior is front-loaded, and the V1 constraint is stated directly after the main purpose.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does and the most important usage restriction. It would be slightly stronger if it explained the behavior when non-LINE entities are passed, e.g., whether they are ignored or cause an error.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by clarifying that 'handles' must refer to LINE entities (V1 limitation) and that the output follows ISO 129 conventions. This is a genuine semantic addition beyond the parameter names and defaults.

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 ('Generate'), a resource ('ISO 129 dimensions'), and a clear scope ('across the listed entities in the chosen style'). It also adds the critical V1 constraint ('LINE entities only'), which differentiates this tool from single-entity dimension tools like dimension_linear, dimension_aligned, and dimension_radius.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you have a list of entity handles and want dimensions in a chain, baseline, or ordinate style. It also gives an exclusion ('LINE entities only'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives for a single dimension or explain what to do when entities are not supported.

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