one_click

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: returns area/perimeter scaled or px-only, commits shape with condition, deduct role subtracts, coordinate system in image px at render scale 2.0, origin top-left, y down. All critical behaviors are transparent.

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 dense paragraph containing all information. It is front-loaded with core functionality but lacks structure (e.g., bullet points for separate behaviors). Could be more concise and organized for quick reading.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and behavior varying by scale presence, the description is quite complete. It covers coordinate system, scale impact, role effects, commit mechanism, and return values. Slight lack of explicit return format structure, but sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 33%; only condition and return_verts have descriptions. The tool description adds meaning for x,y (click coordinates), role (floor_area/deduct), condition (finish tag), and coordinate system. However, the 'sheet' parameter is not explained beyond mention of sheet payloads in description.

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 the tool's purpose: one-click area measurement by clicking inside a room on a plan. It specifies flood fill, contour trace, vertices snapped to PDF endpoints. This distinguishes it from siblings like measure_polygon (manual tracing) and load_plan (loading).

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 usage context (click inside a room, with or without scale) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions behavior without scale (px-only, warning) and with scale (committed area), but no direct comparison to siblings.

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