grid

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 discloses rich parameter behavior (formats, defaults, enum-like values) but is silent on whether the tool only renders/returns an image or mutates any stored view, and gives no output or permission context. Solid but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, then each parameter is handled in a tight line. No padding, though some lines are dense and the structure relies on the reader parsing per-parameter prose.

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 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is thorough on inputs. It does not describe the return value (no output schema exists), which is a minor gap for a rendering tool whose output an agent may need to anticipate.

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, and it does: it explains all five parameters—view formats ('path', 'path|N', 'path|x1,y1,x2,y2'), step in pixels with its default rule, units ('px'/'percent') with the 0–100% convention and line spacing, mode values, and method. This is substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it overlays a coordinate grid on a view for measuring part sizes and positions using labeled lines. The purpose is concrete and an agent can distinguish it from a plain view tool. Sibling differentiation is implicit (references 'view' and 'silhouette' for parameter behavior) rather than explicit.

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 is implied ('to take dimensions and positions of parts', 'grid is convenient to place on a large area'), which tells the agent the measurement context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance relative to the many sibling tools (view, silhouette, contour, mark, compare).

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