get_bounding_box

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that it uses geo.intrinsicValue('bounds'), has NO_UNDO, and that the response passes through apply_response_cap. These are meaningful behavioral traits, though it does not explicitly state read-only safety or error conditions.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it includes a changelist reference 'add-geometry-export-and-measure' that adds noise and is not useful for tool invocation, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation. While the description explains the output structure, it omits crucial context about what to pass for ctx and node_path, making it incomplete for standalone use.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'ctx' and 'node_path'. The parameter meanings are left entirely ambiguous, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 it unpacks a geometry 6-tuple bounds into a structured object {min,max,size,center} and mentions the specific intrinsicValue('bounds') layout. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from other geometry tools like get_geometry_data or get_geo_summary.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool or mention alternatives. It is only implied from the tool name and description that it is for retrieving bounding boxes, so usage context is inferred but not stated.

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