get_assembly_bounding_box

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context the annotations do not: output units (mm, degrees, kg), that it runs through an 'independent native SOLIDWORKS engine', and that results come with error evidence. It does not describe shape of the returned data or failure modes in any detail.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. 'Through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' is somewhat promotional filler, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it names units and mentions 'verified measurements and error evidence' but never says what a bounding box result actually contains (dimensions, corner coordinates, per-body vs whole-assembly). For a zero-parameter tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap for an agent trying to interpret the response.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is a 4. The unit statement applies to output rather than inputs, but it is a helpful convention note.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get assembly bounding box'. The word 'assembly' distinguishes it from the sibling get_bounding_box, though the description never explicitly names that sibling or clarifies the scope difference.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_bounding_box, or on any prerequisites (e.g., an active/open assembly). 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' hints at a verification workflow but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool.

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