measure_3d_scene

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

Beyond the annotations, the description importantly reveals stateful behavior: path_point appends to an active path, undo removes its last point, and close_path toggles closure. This is genuinely useful context that the schema and annotations do not provide. The clear action is described, and there is no contradiction with the declared hints.

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 sentences earn their place: the first states the overall purpose, and the second compresses the action semantics with no wasted words. The most important differentiators (stateful path actions) are front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool is a measurement helper, the description covers the action variants and the stateful behavior needed to call it correctly. It lacks explicit guidance on the detail parameter and on interplay with other measurement tools, but the essential invocation semantics are present.

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 compensate. It gives meaningful semantics to action values (distance uses start/end XYZ, path_point appends end, undo removes last point) and clarifies start/end are 3D coordinates. However, the detail parameter and the scope of scene_id are left undocumented, so compensation is only partial.

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 a specific verb set ('Add/list/clear') and a clear resource ('visible measurements in scene units'), immediately distinguishing measure_3d_scene from viewer or navigation siblings like capture_3d_view and navigate_3d_view. The action list maps directly onto the enum, leaving no doubt what the tool does.

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 description conveys that the tool is for measurements and explains the core actions, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage context via 'measurements in scene units' but does not mention any sibling tools or exclusions, so an agent gets only implicit guidance.

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