get_mesh_bounding_box

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the box is LOCAL-space and axis-aligned, which tells the agent the numbers are not world coordinates. It does not address failure behavior for an invalid path or missing LOD.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and space qualifier, with the return shape second. The API path is slightly extraneous but small, and there is no filler or repetition beyond that.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, including derived values (extent, center). Combined with the local-space clarification, an agent has enough to call and consume the result, though error/edge-case behavior is absent.

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 100%, so both static_mesh_path and lod_index (with its default/max semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description restates lod_index in the return list but adds no new meaning such as what happens if the LOD is out of range, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: read the local-space axis-aligned bounding box of a static mesh, and even names the underlying UGeometryScript query function. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_actor_bounds, get_mesh_selection_bounds, or get_scene_bounds, which operate on different scopes (actor/world/selection).

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 (querying a static mesh's local AABB) but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as get_actor_bounds or get_static_mesh_info, nor any precondition like the mesh needing to be loaded. For a simple read tool this is acceptable minimum-viable guidance, but nothing is explicit.

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