Measure distances between components or geometry in SOLIDWORKS with optional points and axes, then inspect verified results and error evidence in millimeters.
Measure distance through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine. Public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg. Inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axis_mm | No | ||
| point_mm | No | ||
| component_a | Yes | ||
| component_b | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results are 'verified measurements' with 'error evidence' and that units are mm/degrees/kg, but it does not explain what verification failure looks like or how ambiguity between components is resolved.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler or repetition. The phrase 'independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' is slightly promotional but still carries engine-identity information.
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?
With no output schema, a 0%-coverage four-parameter schema, and a union-typed geometry input, the description should explain the measurement modes and return shape. Instead it covers units and a vague 'error evidence' note, leaving an agent unable to confidently choose between component and point/axis inputs.
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% across four parameters, and the description only indirectly touches semantics by naming mm as the public geometry unit. It never explains that component_a/component_b select entities while point_mm/axis_mm supply explicit geometry, nor that component_b is optional, leaving the most consequential parameter choice undocumented.
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: 'Measure distance' through the SOLIDWORKS engine, which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from measurement-adjacent siblings such as check_interference or get_bounding_box, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no explanation of the two apparent measurement modes (component-to-component vs. point/axis). The agent must infer from the parameter names alone when component_b, point_mm, or axis_mm should be supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.