dimension_exterior

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the automatic behavior, the affected layer, the elements included, and that it returns stops per side. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing dimensions are replaced, where the dimensions are placed, or any unit/scale implications.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds prerequisites and return value compactly. Minor loss for packing behavior details densely, but overall well-structured.

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 the large sibling set of dimension tools, the complete lack of parameter guidance, and no annotations, the description is not fully actionable. The prerequisite and return value are helpful, but an agent still lacks enough information to choose this tool confidently or set parameters correctly.

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 three parameters (unit, scale, offset). It does not mention any of them or explain how they influence the dimensioning. The schema only provides names, defaults, and an enum, leaving the agent without meaningful parameter semantics.

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 action and resource: automatic exterior dimensioning on all 4 wall sides for layer 'murs'. It specifies what the dimension chain includes (corners, door/window openings, partitions, overall dimension), making it clearly distinct from sibling dimension tools like dimension_chain or dimension_horizontal.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('Draw walls, partitions, doors and windows first'), which is useful usage guidance. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over the many sibling dimension tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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