get_dimensions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: units (mm or degrees) and the exact dimension-name convention returned, which is what an agent needs to chain into set_dimension. No rate/limit or ordering details, hence not a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; the parenthetical efficiently encodes the default-parameter rule. Slight awkwardness in embedding the clause mid-sentence rather than front-loading it, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description still previews the meaningful content (names + unit-bearing values). For a one-param read tool this is close to complete; only the accepted input format for a non-empty 'feature' is left implicit.

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 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the description must carry the burden — and it does: 'of the whole part when feature is empty' fully explains the default ''. It doesn't clarify what string format a non-empty feature value should take (feature name vs. sketch name), which is the remaining gap.

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: reads dimensions of a feature, sketch, or the whole part, and specifies the naming format (D1@Boss-Extrude1) and units. It distinguishes scope via the 'feature is empty' clause and pairs itself with set_dimension, though it doesn't contrast against near-neighbors like measure or add_sketch_dimension.

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 'for set_dimension' establishes the primary workflow (read dimensions to then modify them), and the parenthetical defines the empty-feature case explicitly. It stops short of exclusions — nothing says when to prefer measure or get_feature_tree instead.

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