dim_linear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the dimension line position parameter and the between-points scope, but it does not disclose edge cases such as behavior when points are not aligned or whether the dimension is associative. Some key behavioral traits are missing.

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 that fronts the purpose and parenthetically explains the most ambiguous parameter pair. No superfluous words or repetition.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools and omits behavioral details like orientation determination or failure modes, making it only moderately complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well: 'between two points' implies x1,y1,x2,y2, and '(line_x,line_y)=dimension line position' explains those parameters. However, it does not detail exact coordinate relationships or units, leaving some room for interpretation.

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 'Linear (horiz/vert) dimension between two points' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling dimension tools like dim_aligned, dim_radius, and dim_diameter by explicitly limiting to horizontal/vertical linear dimensions.

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 clear context by specifying 'horiz/vert', implying it is for axis-aligned linear dimensions only. While it does not explicitly name alternatives like dim_aligned for inclined dimensions, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use this tool.

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