measure_alignment

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic operation. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies anything, what it returns (e.g., boolean or report), or any required state of objects (e.g., selection). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 extremely concise, with two lines for purpose and two lines for parameter descriptions, containing no redundant text. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core information.

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 basic purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks information about the return value (e.g., boolean true/false or detailed report) and any prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, it is minimally adequate but could be improved.

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 meaning beyond the input schema: it clarifies that 'objects' are names and restricts 'axis' to X, Y, or Z values, which the schema does not specify. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well.

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's purpose with a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'alignment of multiple objects along an axis', distinguishing it from sibling measurement tools like measure_distance or measure_overlap.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or compare with similar tools such as measure_symmetry or measure_dimensions.

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