angle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key side effect (draws a named angle object) and the return unit (degrees), but does not mention prerequisites, failure modes, or scene mutation details beyond the drawn object.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and an additional side effect. Every word adds value with no fluff.

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?

For a simple measurement tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and the significant drawing side effect. It could be improved by noting the vertex order semantics, but the schema already provides this.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param meaning beyond 'three selections' and 'named object', which the schema already covers with field descriptions like 'Second selection (the vertex)'.

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 the tool measures the angle between three selections and returns it in degrees. It also mentions it draws the measurement as a named angle object, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like distance or dihedral.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dihedral or distance. The description implies usage by the domain (measure angle) but does not state exclusions or alternative conditions.

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