measure_geometry

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds genuine behavioral context instead: numeric precision (6 significant digits) and the accuracy caveat that bbox is exact for planar shapes but ~0.1 mm off on curved ones — information an agent needs to judge whether results meet a tolerance.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the precondition in the first sentence, followed by a compact return block. The precision/bbox caveat is dense but earns its place since it affects interpretation of results.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-field listing is optional bonus rather than required, and the precision caveat is a useful extra. The precondition is stated and the tool is a simple two-parameter read, but the total silence on what doc_name/obj_name must contain leaves a small but real 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 0% and both parameters (doc_name, obj_name) carry no titles beyond the field name, so the description bears the full burden. It only obliquely hints at obj_name via 'the object must have one' and says nothing about doc_name or how the pair identifies the target, leaving the parameters effectively undocumented.

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+resource (measure an object's Shape) and the goal (verify a design target numerically), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like check_interference or get_topology. It never names those alternatives, so differentiation relies on the agent's own inference.

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 parenthetical precondition 'the object must have one' tells the agent a Shape is required before calling, which is real guidance. Beyond that, there is no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g. vs. get_topology or inspect_freecad), so usage is only implied by the stated goal.

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