measure

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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as the interpretation of negative gap values ('negativo = se solapan') and the fact that it can measure collision. This adds meaningful context for the agent without contradicting the annotation.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with specific information and no filler. It front-loads the primary action and details, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return structure. It covers the main use cases (single object and pair relationship) and provides enough context for the agent to decide when and how to use it, making it highly complete for its complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by indicating that one or two objects can be measured, mapping implicitly to name_a and name_b. However, it does not explicitly name or detail the parameters, leaving the agent to infer the mapping.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Mide') and resource (an object or two objects), detailing the measured quantities: dimensions, bbox, center, volume, distance, gap, and collision. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_object_info by focusing on spatial measurements and relationships.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Verifica encajes antes de anclar' (verify fits before anchoring), indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but still offers strong contextual guidance.

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