measure_distance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it usefully discloses the unit of measure and the meaning of a zero result. It does not state that the operation is read-only, how failures are surfaced (unknown/duplicate occurrence names), or whether cross-assembly comparison is supported.

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 tight sentences with the core measurement and its edge-case meaning front-loaded; nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and parameter meaning is covered. Remaining gaps are minor: failure behavior for bad names and remote-instance targeting when multiple Inventor instances are connected.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates by explaining that a and b are occurrence names from list_occurrences and that the "Asm:1/2" path syntax reaches into sub-assemblies. The instance parameter is covered by its schema description, so the important semantics are present.

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+resource (measure minimum distance between two occurrences) and adds unit and edge-case semantics (mm, 0 = touching/overlapping). An agent knows exactly what is computed, though no sibling (e.g. check_interference) is named to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the naming reference to list_occurrences hints at the required calling sequence, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no mention of the interference-checking sibling as an alternative.

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