measure_distance

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the computation is Euclidean and that inputs are XYZ coordinate points, implying a pure calculation with no side effects. It does not discuss degenerate inputs, coordinate order, or error behavior, though the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and inputs.

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 pure-calculation tool, the description combined with the schema and output schema is nearly sufficient. The main missing explicit detail is coordinate ordering and required array length, but 'XYZ points' plus the straightforward operation makes correct invocation likely.

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 schema only provides parameter names and types (array of number) with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'XYZ points' adds meaningful semantics: each array should represent a 3D point and the two parameters are the endpoints. However, it stops short of explicitly specifying exact array length and ordering, even though 'XYZ' strongly implies [x, y, z].

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 names a precise verb (measure), a specific mathematical operation (Euclidean distance), and the exact resource (two XYZ points). This cleanly distinguishes it from other geometry tools like get_bounding_box or check_geometry.

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 use case is immediately clear: call this tool whenever a straight-line distance between two 3D points is needed. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to provide distance measurement, so the omission is minor.

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