measure_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return structure (width, edges, runs, filled width per band), the height mapping, grid behavior with metric labels and coordinates, region zoom, and file output. However, it does not explain the threshold or bands parameters and gives no permission or rate-limit context (likely not applicable here).

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and return details. It is appropriately sized for a complex measurement tool, though some clauses could be tightened and the line break after 'The image' is awkward.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must cover behavior and returns, which it largely does by explaining bands, coordinates, grid, region, and out. For a complex 8-parameter tool, the remaining gaps around threshold, bands, and reference format keep it from being fully complete, but the core invocation is clear.

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 0% for 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains height_m, grid, region, grid_size, and out, but omits the meaning of bands, threshold, and the expected format of reference. The partial coverage is useful but leaves two numeric tuning parameters 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Measure a silhouette in a reference image in metres') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'measure' for objects of the scene. It also details what the measurement returns, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative 'measure' and the condition that selects it ('use measure for an object of the scene'). It also gives concrete downstream uses ('loft sections, assert_spec checks or to find where the model differs'), so the agent knows when this tool is appropriate.

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