daz_calculate_distance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (total distance, horizontal/vertical distance, direction vector) and units (centimeters), and provides an example. However, it does not mention potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., node existence), which is a minor gap.

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 clear and front-loaded with the main action and return summary. The example is helpful but adds length. It could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema in the input schema, the description provides comprehensive context: inputs, return structure, units, and an example. It fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description fully explains both parameters ('node1_label: Display label of the first node' and similarly for node2), adding crucial meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 'Calculate the distance between two nodes' with specific verb and resource, and details the return values. It distinguishes itself from siblings like daz_check_overlap or daz_get_spatial_relationship by focusing on distance metrics.

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 for distance calculations but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like daz_check_overlap or daz_reach_toward. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are stated.

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