measure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns point_distance_m, angle_deg, parallel/perpendicular flags, and optional projected distances. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, or how missing IDs are handled, though the tool appears to be a read-only measurement operation.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with what the tool does and immediately giving usage examples. It contains some redundancy in the final sentence, but overall every part contributes useful information for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The description covers the input source, the kinds of entities, the purpose, and the return contents, so an agent has enough to call the tool correctly even without an output schema. It could be more complete by noting potential failure cases or constraints about entity compatibility, but it is substantially complete for this measurement tool.

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 description adds real meaning to the schema by explaining that entityAId and entityBId come from list_entities and refer to faces/edges/vertices. It also clarifies the output units and flags. The documentId and workspaceId parameters are not described, but they are standard context identifiers.

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 states a specific verb and resource: measure numeric distance and angle between two entities, and specifies the entity types (faces/edges/vertices). It clearly distinguishes itself from vision/rendering tools by emphasizing deterministic IDs and numerical output.

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 explicitly says to use this instead of eyeballing a render and gives concrete example questions. It provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not mention specific situations where it should not be used or other sibling tools that might be alternatives.

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