dimension_horizontal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the offset parameter's direction and default value, and mentions the output block on layer 'cotations'. However, it does not disclose coordinate system assumptions, side effects, or prerequisites, and the offset default expression ('600 at 1:50, i.e. 12 mm on paper') is somewhat cryptic.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and packs useful information into two sentences. However, the offset default phrasing is unclear and could be simplified without losing 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?

Given no annotations and 0% schema descriptions, this description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance against the many dimension siblings, leaves unit and scale unexplained, and the offset default is confusing. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the overall gap is still significant for correct invocation.

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 explains offset semantics in some detail but does not explain p1/p2 beyond calling them [x,y] points, nor does it explain the unit or scale parameters. With 5 parameters, this leaves a major gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Horizontal dimension between two [x, y] points (mm).' This identifies a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from vertical, aligned, and other dimension siblings. The added detail about a 'Cote' block on layer 'cotations' further clarifies the expected output.

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 name and description imply usage for horizontal dimensions, but no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over the many sibling dimension tools (dimension_vertical, dimension_aligned, dimension_linear, etc.). No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from 'Horizontal' alone.

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