measure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully defines the return metrics (center, edge, dx, dy, dz) and clarifies edge behavior when bounding boxes overlap, but it omits error handling, required permissions, and whether missing objects cause failures.

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 tight sentences: the first states the measurement and input forms, and the second defines the returned components. Every phrase is informative and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter measurement tool with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies the essential input formats and return metrics. It is nearly complete for invocation, though it could mention failure behavior or whether points are interpreted as world coordinates.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds valuable meaning by explaining that each argument can be an object GUID or a point array in [x, y, z] form, but it does not explicitly map this to parameters a and b or specify whether mixed argument types are allowed.

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 operation: measuring horizontal distance between two objects (GUIDs) or points ([x, y, z]) in world units. It is distinct from sibling tools like move_object or table_geometry, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as table_geometry or inspect_object. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or usage conditions stated.

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