get_bounding_box

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape and units (min/max/size in mm), which is genuinely useful. It omits whether the call requires a rebuilt/up-to-date model, whether it operates on the active document, and how the part-vs-assembly scope is actually resolved.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding. The compressed "part, tight, or assembly" phrasing saves words at the cost of a little clarity.

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 and no annotations, so the description must define the result — it does so at a high level (min/max/size in mm) but leaves the scope behavior unresolved. For a simple read tool this is close to adequate, but the ambiguity about which body/assembly is measured is a real gap.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The only wrinkle is that the description implies a scope choice that has no corresponding input.

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 ("Get the bounding box") and names the returned fields (min/max/size in mm), which distinguishes it from siblings like measure_distance or get_mass_properties. The trailing clause "of the current part, tight, or of the whole assembly" is ambiguous — it reads like selectable scopes, yet the tool takes no parameters.

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 guidance on when to call this versus adjacent tools such as get_mass_properties, measure_distance, or list_bodies. The reader must infer the use case entirely from the one-line purpose.

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