dimension_angle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool draws an arc (visual output) and computes the smaller angle, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool modifies existing geometry, requires specific coordinate systems, or has side effects like creating a new object in the document. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 purpose (angle at vertex) and includes the key behavioral detail (smaller angle, drawn as arc). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema exists. The description explains the geometric meaning of the three required parameters but omits 'scale' and 'radius', which likely control the visual size of the arc. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage guidance make the description incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'vertex', 'p1', and 'p2' implicitly by explaining the angle is at the vertex between rays to p1 and p2, but it doesn't explain the 'scale' or 'radius' parameters at all. The description adds meaning for the three required parameters but leaves two optional parameters completely unexplained, which is a significant gap.

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 angle dimension at a vertex between two rays, drawn as an arc. It uses a specific verb ('Angle at...') and identifies the resource (dimension). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling dimension tools like dimension_vertical or dimension_aligned, but the geometric definition (angle between rays) is distinct enough to infer its 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 implies usage context: it's for dimensioning an angle between two points relative to a vertex. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dimension_linear or dimension_aligned, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing drawing or active view). The context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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