cad_measure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions efficiency but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what happens with empty part studios, or any required permissions. The measurement nature implies safety, but not explicitly.

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, front-loaded with essential information, and contains no superfluous text. Every word adds value.

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 description covers the tool's outputs and efficiency, but lacks parameter explanations and explicit behavioral disclosure. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete but has gaps that could hinder correct usage.

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 input schema has three required parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what documentId, workspaceId, or elementId refer to. It only mentions the 'part studio' context, which partially hints at elementId, but is insufficient for the agent to map parameters correctly.

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 solids in a part studio, returning solid count, total volume in cubic inches, and bounding box dimensions. It specifies it does this in one FeatureScript eval, making it distinct from sibling tools which perform modifications or other analyses.

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 efficient use via 'ONE FeatureScript eval' and 'Quota-frugal', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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