dimension_vertical

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the offset direction ('offset > 0 puts the line to the right, < 0 to the left') but does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it mutates the document, how it handles invalid points, or how the vertical dimension is positioned relative to the points. The offset behavior is useful but incomplete.

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 and then adds the offset rule. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the offset behavior into its own sentence.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the coordinate format for p1/p2, the meaning of scale, the default unit behavior, or what the output schema contains. An agent would need to inspect the schema and guess at conventions, which is risky for a drawing tool.

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 schema's lack of parameter documentation. It only explains the offset parameter's sign convention; p1, p2, unit, and scale are left entirely to the schema's bare type/enum definitions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for most parameters.

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 verb and resource: it creates a vertical dimension between two points. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dimension_horizontal and dimension_aligned by the 'vertical' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The offset direction rule adds useful specificity.

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 by defining the tool's function and the offset sign convention, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over dimension_aligned, dimension_linear, or dimension_horizontal. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.

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