Aligned Dimension

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

The description states 'Create', which indicates a write operation, consistent with the annotation readOnlyHint=false. However, no additional behavioral details are disclosed (e.g., that a dimension entity is added to the drawing, or any side effects like requiring a current layout). With annotations already providing the read-only status, the description adds minimal value beyond that.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It fits on one line and is easily parseable by an agent. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about the layer parameter (optional) and the fact that this tool creates a persistent entity. For a 7-parameter creation tool with a sibling set of 10+ dimension-related tools, more contextual hand-holding would improve usability.

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?

The input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), such as 'First point X' and 'Dimension line position X'. The description does not elaborate on these beyond the schema, so it provides no added semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema is self-sufficient.

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 the action ('Create') and the resource ('aligned dimension') and explains the purpose ('measures the true distance between two points'). This distinguishes it from linear dimensions (orthogonal) and other dimension types, though it could be more explicit about the alignment concept.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling dimension tools (e.g., dimension_linear for orthogonal distances, dimension_angular for angles). The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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