autocad_dim_radius

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context. It does: the tool creates a DIMENSION entity, the layer is auto-created if missing, and the return is a JSON status/handle. Per-permission or failure behavior is not stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns layout is scannable. The Args block partially duplicates the schema, which is slightly redundant, but nothing is padded or confusing.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description still summarizes the return shape, so an agent knows what to expect after creation. Combined with fully documented inputs, the definition is complete enough; only the absence of failure/permission caveats leaves a small gap.

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?

Reported schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it documents center, radius (must be > 0), angle as DEGREES with default 45, diameter as a boolean switch, and layer default 'DIMENSIONS'. This compensates well for the coverage gap, though it largely mirrors the schema's own property descriptions.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource ('Dimension the radius or diameter of a circular feature'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling dimension tools dim_aligned and dim_angular by naming the feature type. It never explicitly names those siblings, so an agent must infer the routing, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the constraint 'circular feature' and the diameter flag, which narrows the applicable scenario. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like dim_angular for arcs, so it is only minimum-viable.

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