Medir alinhamento de placas (lente)

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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true: it measures and returns a value without mutating anything. Beyond the annotation it adds that the returned number is directly consumable by data-im-offset and that stacking requires same-image edits, but says nothing about failure modes (unaligned/incompatible plates) or output 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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the constraint placed second. No filler, though the parenthetical '(raio-X, térmica, depois)' is slightly cryptic without context.

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 three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is only partially sufficient: it explains the concept and the intended downstream use of the result, but leaves the input formats and the shape/units of the returned offset undefined.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It obliquely maps 'placa-base' and 'placa-edit' to the base/camada inputs but never defines the string format (path, ID, name), and the 'projeto' parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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 and resource: it measures the displacement between the base plate and an edit plate, and says what the result is for (data-im-offset of the lens). This is enough to distinguish it from the site/moment/module siblings, which is the main risk given the tool sits in a very different domain.

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 provides a precondition ('plates only stack if they are edits of the same image'), which implies when the tool is valid, but never says when to reach for it versus not, nor names any alternative or follow-up tool. Usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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