plasticity_measure_linear_edges

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, so the description's added value is the semantic definition of the two distance types and the disclaimer that finite-edge distance is centerline-only, not face/body minimum clearance. That clarification materially reduces misinterpretation of results, though it says nothing about tolerance behavior or failure modes.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler; the core measurement is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the returned measurements and their geometric meaning, which is the strongest part. However, an agent still lacks any explanation of the four inputs, particularly revision and angularToleranceDeg, so the definition is adequate but incomplete for a nested-object tool.

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% across 4 parameters, including two nested {bodyId, edgeId} objects and an angularToleranceDeg with a default. The description never explains what 'first'/'second' designate, what 'revision' pins, or how the tolerance affects the reported angle, so it fails to compensate for the documentation 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 and resource: measure angle and closest approach between two linear B-Rep edges. It also names the exact quantities returned (infinite supporting-line clearance vs. finite centerline distance), which cleanly separates it from generic siblings like plasticity_measure or plasticity_check_interference.

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 closing clause ('it is not minimum clearance between the owning faces or bodies') functions as an explicit when-not-to-use boundary, steering the agent toward a face/body clearance tool for that question. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling or stating prerequisites, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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