Dimension: Auto (chain / baseline / ordinate)

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

The description adds that the tool generates dimensions and supports only lines, but it does not explain what exactly happens (e.g., creates dimension entities) or side effects. Annotations state destructiveHint: false, which is consistent. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral details.

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?

Two short sentences convey the core functionality and a critical constraint. Every word is essential; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and a key limitation (only lines). Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It is complete enough for a straightforward auto-dimensioning tool, though it could mention that it creates multiple dimension objects.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add further details beyond the schema, such as the meaning of 'style' or 'offset'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool generates ISO 129 dimensions across entities in a chosen style, and specifies 'V1 supports LINE entities only.' This distinguishes it from sibling dimension tools like dimension_linear or dimension_aligned, which handle single dimensions or other entity types.

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 provides clear guidance that the tool works on LINE entities only, implying it should be used when auto-dimensioning multiple lines. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for other entity types) or name alternative tools like dimension_linear for single lines.

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