measure_angleMeasure the angle between two entities in a Fusion 360 model. Provide the names of the first and second entities to calculate the angular relationship for design validation.
Measure angle between two entities
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_one | Yes | First entity name (face, edge) | |
| entity_two | Yes | Second entity name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, repeatable operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as what 'entities' refer to (faces, edges), how angles are calculated, or any limitations. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers minimal additional insight.
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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. It front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on entity types, measurement units, or error conditions, which could aid an agent in correct invocation.
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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('First entity name (face, edge)' and 'Second entity name'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as entity selection rules or angle calculation specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.
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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('measure') and resource ('angle between two entities'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'measure_distance', which serves a similar measurement function but for distance rather than angle.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'measure_distance' for different measurement types or specify contexts where angle measurement is appropriate, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.