get_bounds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the visible_only behavior (ignores hidden layers and objects), the optional layer scoping, and the output units in mm. This is solid coverage for a read-only bounding-box query, though it does not describe edge cases like an empty drawing.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the key output fields and units, then add the parameter behavior. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 getter with an output schema present, the description covers the main calling details: scope, visibility filter, and units. It is slightly terse on default layer behavior, but overall an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does explain visible_only explicitly and gives context for layer via 'whole drawing (or one layer)', but it does not specify the expected layer-name format or the exact meaning of null. This is useful but not exhaustive.

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's output: a bounding box for either the whole drawing or a single layer, with x/y min/max, width, and height in mm. It is specific about the resource type and scope, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like get_object_geometry.

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 through the layer and visible_only parameters, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the appropriate context.

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