get_extents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful traits such as being 'cheap' and producing 'no screenshot', but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe behavior on invalid layer names. This leaves some gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function and adds a usage note. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, the scope (whole drawing or layer), and a key non-functional trait (no screenshot). The output schema likely handles return structure, so no further detail is needed.

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 description directly explains the sole 'layer' parameter: an empty value (default) means the whole drawing, while a provided value targets one layer. This meaningfully complements the bare schema, which has no description and 0% coverage, by giving essential semantic context.

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 identifies the tool as returning the bounding box of either the whole drawing or a single layer. It uses a specific noun phrase and distinguishes itself from rendering tools by explicitly stating 'no screenshot', which differentiates it from visual inspection tools like zoom_extents.

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 usage as a 'cheap spatial check', indicating it is suitable for quick geometric queries without rendering. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the 'no screenshot' note helps clarify it is not for visual inspection.

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