distance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the unit (cm) and ties the result to the selected frame, but it never states whether the returned value is a signed scalar, unsigned magnitude, or a vector, and 'b minus a' actively suggests a directional result that contradicts the word 'distance'.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but the clause 'cm, and b minus a in the frame' is grammatically awkward and buries the key semantic point, reducing clarity rather than achieving crispness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the return value and the mathematical convention, and it fails to do so. For a measurement tool with three parameters and three frames, this leaves the agent unsure what it actually gets back.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the name/coordinate options and the frame semantics; baseline 3 applies. The description reiterates the unit and frame context but adds no syntax or format detail 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 states the tool computes the distance between two points with a unit (cm), so the resource is identifiable. However, the phrasing is muddled: 'b minus a in the frame' describes a vector difference, which conflicts with the scalar notion of distance, and no sibling (e.g. clearance, where) is named to distinguish this tool from related measurement tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as clearance or where. Usage is only weakly implied by the idea of measuring between two rig points.

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