dim_aligned

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of line_x/line_y but does not state whether the tool creates a drawing entity, requires an existing dimension style, or returns a value. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that likely mutates the drawing.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and defines the non-obvious parameters. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant 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?

For a tool with six numeric parameters and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose but omits behavioral details such as the effect on the drawing, prerequisites, or return value. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive, especially given the lack of annotation support.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines line_x and line_y as the dimension line position, which is not obvious from the schema. The x1, y1, x2, y2 parameters are implied by 'between two points,' though not explicitly described. This adds moderate value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 identifies the tool as creating an aligned (parallel) dimension between two points, with specific meaning for the line position parameters. It distinguishes this from sibling dimension tools like dim_linear and dim_angular, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'creates' or 'draws'.

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?

Usage context is implied through the parenthetical 'parallel,' which suggests this tool is for dimensions parallel to the line between the two points, contrasting with horizontal/vertical dimensions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dim_linear, and no exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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