symbol_bounds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool is read-only in spirit ('clearance checks') and specifies units (inches) and scope ('ink bounding box'), which adds useful context. However, it does not disclose possible errors, coordinate-space origin, or whether the returned bounds account for transformations like angle and flip_x, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence with a clear, front-loaded definition and a purpose clause. Every word contributes meaning: 'absolute' indicates coordinate space, 'ink' clarifies visual extent, 'inches' gives units, and 'clearance checks' states the use case. No waste.

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 five parameters, no schema descriptions, and only this sparse text. While an output schema exists, the description does not clarify the required parameters' semantics or how transformations (angle, flip_x) influence the bounding box. For a geometry tool, this is a significant gap, even though the core behavior is stated.

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 the description names none of the parameters (x, y, angle, flip_x, master). It does not explain what x/y represent (e.g., insertion point, center), how angle/flip_x affect the result, or what master refers to. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names already present in the schema.

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 the tool returns the 'Absolute ink bounding box of a symbol body (inches)', giving a specific resource and measurement unit. The phrase 'for clearance checks — keep wires out of it' distinguishes its intended use from sibling tools like draw_wire and pin_point, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool: for clearance checks and to keep wires out of the symbol bounding box. It does not spell out exclusion criteria or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer this is a geometric query rather than a drawing or measurement-pin operation.

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