dim_angular

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists the geometric inputs needed, but says nothing about what happens when the tool is invoked (e.g., whether it creates a dimension entity, modifies the drawing, or requires an active drawing). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely has side effects.

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 core concept. Every word earns its place, but it is almost too terse given the complexity of the tool. Structure is clean and no unnecessary detail is present.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and a description that covers only the input roles. It omits important context such as the resulting entity type, units, orientation, or any preconditions. With low schema coverage and no safety hints, the description is inadequate for fully understanding the tool's behavior and return value, though an output schema exists.

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 description groups the eight schema parameters into meaningful roles: 'vertex', 'a point on each side', and 'dimension arc position.' This adds semantic context beyond bare parameter names like x1, y1. However, it does not precisely map each parameter (e.g., which point corresponds to x1,y1 vs x2,y2), and with 0% schema coverage, it only partially compensates.

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 angular dimension, defined by vertex, points on each side, and arc position. It distinguishes from other dimension tools by specifying 'angular dimension' and the geometric components, though it could be more explicit about the action (creating a dimension). The verb is implied rather than stated directly.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like dim_linear or dim_aligned, nor does it mention required drawing state or prerequisites. Users are left to infer the tool's role from the name and terse definition.

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