Creates an aligned dimension measurement between two points in a FreeCAD architectural plan, with configurable offset, unit, and scale.
Dimension of the true distance p1-p2, line parallel to it (offset > 0 = left of p1->p2).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| p1 | Yes | ||
| p2 | Yes | ||
| unit | No | m | |
| scale | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add useful geometry semantics: the dimension is parallel to p1-p2 and offset > 0 places it left of the direction p1->p2. It does not disclose whether the tool creates/updates a drawing object, what coordinate dimensions p1/p2 require, or how unit/scale affect the result, leaving notable 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?
A single front-loaded sentence conveys the core behavior and the key offset convention with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning.
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 five parameters and zero annotation coverage; the terse description omits prerequisites, the coordinate dimensionality of p1/p2, scale/unit behavior, and placement/creation context. An output schema exists, but the description still under-specifies what an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly among many dimension siblings.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to p1/p2 (true distance endpoints) and offset (left side when positive), but it leaves unit and scale semantics to their schema defaults/enums, and it does not specify the required array length or coordinate system for the point parameters.
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 states a specific geometric operation: dimensioning the true distance p1-p2 with a line parallel to that segment. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from horizontal/vertical dimension siblings, though it never names an alternative.
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 by 'line parallel to it' – an agent can infer this tool is for dimensions aligned with p1->p2 rather than axis-aligned dimensions. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool names are provided, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.