measure_bounding_box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose what 'measure' returns (extents, dimensions, coordinates), what units are used, whether it handles 2D/3D, or whether the operation is read-only; only the bare action is stated.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is well-structured but too thin to earn a 5.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too sparse for a measurement tool. It omits the return format, units, dimensionality, and its distinction from get_bounding_box, all of which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and there is one required parameter (entity_ids). The word 'entities' loosely implies the array of entity IDs, but the description adds no details on valid ID forms, minimum count semantics, or behavior for mixed entity types.

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?

States a specific verb (measure) and resource (bounding box) with a scope qualifier (combined, of entities), which is clear. However, it never contrasts with the sibling get_bounding_box, so an agent must guess whether this is the multi-entity variant or something else.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related get_bounding_box sibling in the tool list. The agent gets no routing help for choosing between the two bounding-box tools or the measure_* family.

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