object-bounds

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

The term 'Read' indicates a non-mutating operation, and specifying 'local and world bounds' conveys what is returned. However, with no annotations and no mention of error cases or prerequisites, the description carries only partial behavioral burden.

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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 description explains what the tool does but omits details about the return structure, error behavior, or relationship to alternative read tools. Since there is no output schema, the agent lacks sufficient context to reliably interpret the result or handle edge cases.

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 schema provides no description for the 'object' parameter beyond its title 'Object name', and the tool description does not elaborate on accepted formats or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving ambiguity about what an 'object' reference looks like.

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 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an object's local and world bounds'. It distinguishes from sibling object-related tools like object-transform_get by focusing on bounds rather than transforms.

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 when to use the tool (when you need an object's bounds) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the clear purpose, an agent can infer usage, but no direct guidance is offered.

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