measure_angle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing the return object, degree units, supported entity/point inputs, and the two operating modes. It does not detail constraints such as mixed entity/point handling, precision, or error conditions, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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 front-loaded, compact, and every sentence adds useful information. The return contract and examples are included without unnecessary verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input modes, return value, and examples. Minor omissions around error behavior and sibling-tool selection keep it from being fully complete.

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 input schema repeats the same type description for a, b, and c, but the tool description adds critical semantic information: a-b is the two-operand case, and a-b-c uses b as the vertex. The examples further clarify parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 that the tool computes an angle in degrees, including the two-operand and three-operand modes. It is specific about the resource and result, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling measure_distance tool.

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?

It explains the key usage distinction: two operands measure between two entities, while three operands measure the angle at vertex b of a-b-c. It provides examples, but does not state when not to use it or name measure_distance as the alternative for distance queries.

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