get_bounding_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns geometry bounds and includes min, max, size, center, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not state whether it triggers a cook, what happens for invalid node_path, or whether it works for all node types. It is minimally transparent but not rich.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the action. It includes no filler and every word adds meaning.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description lists return fields (min, max, size, center) which is good. However, it lacks critical context like node_path semantics, error behavior, and whether the geometry is cooked. It is adequate for a basic getter but leaves gaps for an agent to use it reliably.

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 0% description coverage for the only parameter, node_path, and the description does not explain what node_path means (e.g., path format, relative vs absolute, node types). The description merely implies it identifies a node, adding no value over the parameter's name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bounding box of a node's geometry'), and explicitly lists what is returned (min, max, size, center). This clearly differentiates it from other geometry-related tools like get_geo_summary or get_points.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as 'use when you need axis-aligned bounds' or 'for mesh bounds, use get_geo_summary'. There is no proactive differentiation from sibling tools.

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