blueprint_measure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only measurement operation, but does not disclose permissions, whether it mutates state, how figure_id is resolved, what the return format is, or any limitations. The phrase 'by the tools, not by eye' adds only a vague behavioral hint and no operational detail.

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 a single concise sentence fragment, so it does not waste words. However, it is not front-loaded with a clear subject or verb, and its poetic phrasing ('ink's span', 'faint marks') sacrifices immediate clarity for style. It is adequately sized but under-specified rather than richly concise.

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 tool has six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, so the description should compensate heavily. Instead, it provides only a high-level list of measurement types and omits parameter explanations, usage context, return behavior, and safety profile. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool reliably without additional inference.

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 only 17%, with just the 'how' parameter documented in the schema. The description loosely maps to the 'how' options (distance, span, ticks, peaks), but does not explain the required a, b, gun, figure_id, or optional light parameters. It adds little operational meaning for the four undocumented parameters that an agent must supply.

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 the resource (a figure) and enumerates the kinds of readings: distance, ink span, scale bar ticks, and faint marks. It is clear that the tool measures geometry on a figure, though the phrasing 'Readings off a figure by the tools, not by eye' is less direct than a standard verb+resource statement. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as blueprint_read or blueprint_numbers.

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 guidance on when to use blueprint_measure versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only implies that the tool performs measurement, leaving the agent to infer its role among many blueprint_* siblings. No context about coordinate systems, figure_id requirements, or suitable use cases is provided.

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