catia_measure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the non-destructive nature. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the tool returns only the measurements that apply to the given element type, and it lists the range of element types supported. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict the output without overstating anything.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and what is measured; the second covers the operand types. All information is relevant and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the purpose, supported elements, and the nature of the output (type and applicable measurements). It does not mention units or error behavior, but these are not critical for a CAD measure tool given the annotations. The lack of an output schema is mitigated because the description lists what will be returned.

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?

The single parameter 'element' has detailed schema description with reference token examples ('face#2', 'edge@10,0,0'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides; it merely mentions the element types in the description, which complements but doesn't extend the parameter's meaning.

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 (measure) and resource (a single element), and enumerates the exact measurements returned (type, length, area, volume, radius, centre of gravity). It also lists the supported element types, making it unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like catia_measure_distance or catia_measure_angle, which operate on pairs or angles.

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 implies when to use this tool by specifying what element types it works on and that it measures single elements, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as catia_measure_distance or catia_mass_properties. There is no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance, so the usage context is clear but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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