dimension_linear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the direction derivation behavior (from points or explicit direction), but does not mention that this creates a dimension entity, any prerequisites, coordinate expectations, or side effects.

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 and front-loaded with the core concept, but it is under-sized for a tool with six parameters and no annotation support. It avoids waste, yet sacrifices necessary detail.

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, low schema coverage, and several dimension siblings, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter meanings, required setup, and behavior context, though an output schema exists to cover return values.

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 explain parameters. It minimally covers p1/p2 as 'points' and direction as 'horizontal'/'vertical', but unit, scale, and offset are completely unexplained, leaving most of the 6 parameters ambiguous.

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 that the tool creates a horizontal or vertical dimension from points or an explicit direction. This distinguishes it from aligned, angle, and other dimension siblings, even though it lacks an explicit verb like 'create'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus dimension_horizontal, dimension_vertical, or dimension_aligned. It implies a direction can be auto-derived or set, but does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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