catia_measure_distance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it reports the points of minimum distance and interprets zero distance as touch/interference. It does not contradict any annotations.

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, no filler, front-loaded with the primary action. The clearance-check use case is a useful addition without bloating the description.

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 is simple (two params, no output schema), but the description does not specify the return format (e.g., distance value, coordinate structure, units). An agent needs to know what the tool returns to use it correctly. This is a notable gap given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters are described as element reference tokens). The description merely refers to 'two elements' without adding format, acquisition, or constraint details beyond the schema. Since schema is comprehensive, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 measures the shortest distance between two elements and reports the two points where the minimum occurs. It distinguishes itself from catia_measure_angle (angle measurement) and adds specific semantics (zero distance means touch/interference). This is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for distance measurement and explicitly mentions a clearance check between assembly components. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like catia_measure or catia_measure_angle, though the purpose is clear enough for most scenarios.

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