Dimension anchor points

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: only anchors with usableAsPoint=true can be linked, and model elements are always read in Floor Plan (plan) coordinates regardless of the active window. It also sketches the return shape. Minor gap: no pagination note despite a limit param.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers usage, constraints, coordinate caveat, and return shape. It is long and dense for a single paragraph, but each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is redundant padding.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, which it does (elements with anchors and their fields). Combined with the usage and coordinate notes, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the only omissions are default/paging behavior for the limit param.

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 near, radius, limit, and elements are already documented by the schema. The description restates near/radius ('sort by distance', 'filter') but adds no syntax or nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Lists) and resource (the points of elements that dimensions can link to), then enumerates concrete anchor kinds (wall ends/corners, column corners, opening points, slab vertices). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like create_dimensions and create_hotspots.

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 tells the agent how to consume the output: pass a point's x,y with {element, x, y} to create_dimensions for an associative point, and offers near/radius for sorting/filtering. It names the sibling tool and the selection condition, though it stops short of stating when not to use it.

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