measure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the act of measuring, such as what happens if the path is invalid, whether the value is guaranteed to exist, or how the output is structured. The description is too thin to convey any non-obvious behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no filler, which is good for conciseness. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices essential information. The core idea is front-loaded, but the lack of parameter or context details means it does not earn its place as a complete guide. It is concise but under-specified.

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 the tool's 2 parameters, the presence of an output schema, and the safety annotations, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the semantic distinction between 'measure' and other read tools like get_operation or get_operation_parameters, nor does it describe how the path selects a value. With many siblings, the absence of differentiation makes it insufficient for an agent to choose and invoke it correctly.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the parameters. It only mentions a 'named value' and 'Mastercam target' but does not explain what 'path' means, how 'operationId' relates to the target, or the significance of the default 'operation.feed'. No meaningful semantics are added beyond the raw schema, making the tool hard to invoke correctly.

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 uses a specific verb 'Measure' and references a 'named value' on a 'Mastercam target', which suggests reading a property. However, it does not specify what kind of target (e.g., operation, tool, geometry) or clarify the relationship with the path parameter. It is more specific than a tautology but remains vague and does not distinguish it from siblings like get_operation_parameters or inspect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema. For a tool with many siblings, this is a significant gap.

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