dimension_room

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavioral context: dimensions are drawn inside the room, points must be wall faces rather than axes, and the bounding box is used. It omits important details such as how many points must be supplied, how unit/scale/offset affect the drawing, and what side effects or document changes occur.

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 short, front-loaded with the outcome, and includes no filler. The key qualifiers about wall faces and the bounding box are present in just a few lines. The repeated use of 'clear' creates mild ambiguity but does not make the text bloated.

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?

This is an adequate but incomplete definition for a tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema. It explains what the tool dimensions and where the dimension is placed, and the output schema covers return values. However, the undocumented parameters and lack of guidance about points count/order and tool selection leave noticeable gaps for an agent trying to invoke it 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 by explaining parameters. It only explains 'points' as the room's clear corners on wall faces, which is genuinely helpful. Unit, scale, and offset are not described at all, and the structure, ordering, and expected count of the points array are left to inference from names and schema defaults.

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 identifies a specific function: generating the clear interior width and depth dimensions of a room, drawn inside it along the bottom and left sides. The extra details about wall faces vs. axes and using the bounding box help differentiate it from generic sibling tools like dimension_horizontal, dimension_vertical, and dimension_exterior. Some ambiguity remains in the word 'clear,' which could be read as clearance or as a verb.

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 this tool is for room-level width and depth dimensions and states where the dimensions are drawn. However, it never explicitly explains when to prefer this tool over dimension_aligned, dimension_chain, or dimension_exterior, and it gives no exclusion conditions. An agent must infer usage primarily from the tool name and the word 'room.'

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