Measure entity extents, lengths, areas, volumes, and centroids. Calculate mass from density for selected AutoCAD objects.
Measure selected entities: extents, curve length, planar area, 3D solid volume, centroid, and optional mass from density.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| density | No | Mass density in drawing mass-units per cubic drawing-unit | |
| handles | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that mass is optional and derives from density, but it omits relevant behavior such as the 500-entity cap on handles and what happens with unsupported entity types.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and then a compact enumeration of outputs; every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.
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, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics, which is the key information an agent needs. It is nearly complete for a read-only measurement tool, with only minor gaps around units and selection prerequisites.
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 50%: the density parameter is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces its purpose ('optional mass from density'), while handles is only self-evident as an identifier list. With half the parameters documented, the description neither compensates fully nor needs to, so a baseline 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 gives a specific verb (measure) and resource (selected entities) and enumerates exactly what is computed: extents, curve length, planar area, 3D solid volume, centroid, and optional mass. It is clear and self-contained, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from potentially overlapping siblings such as cad_inspect or cad_solid.
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 prerequisites are stated. The phrase 'selected entities' implies the caller must first have a selection, but this is left to inference rather than stated, and no sibling tool is named or excluded.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.