dim_aligned

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the dimension line position is controlled by (line_x,line_y) and that coordinates are exact unless snap=True, which is useful. But it does not explain what snap actually does, deferring to dim_linear, and does not mention any side effects or prerequisites. This is moderate transparency but has gaps.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes a compact formula for the key parameter pair. Every phrase earns its place, and the reference to dim_linear is concise. There is no redundancy.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, this brief description is incomplete. It does not explain all parameters, the meaning of snap, or how the output is structured (though an output schema exists). It relies on dim_linear to fill gaps, which reduces its self-contained completeness.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains line_x and line_y as the dimension line position and implies x1,y1,x2,y2 are the two points, but it does not explicitly define any of the parameters. snap is only mentioned as a boolean trigger, with details deferred to another tool. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 the tool's function: it creates an 'Aligned (parallel) dimension between two points.' This distinguishes it from sibling dimension tools like dim_linear, dim_radius, and dim_angular, which are all different dimension types. The verb 'dimension' and the modifier 'parallel' provide a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (for aligned/parallel dimensions between two points) and references dim_linear for the snap behavior, hinting at a difference between the two. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of dim_linear when...' or list exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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