calculate_bounding_box_3d

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one concrete behavioral disclosure — the 0.02 USDC cost on Base L2, implying a paid x402 settlement flow tied to paymentSignature. However, it never confirms the operation is read-only/non-destructive, nor discloses behavior on malformed or extremely large meshes.

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 with the action and output front-loaded in the first. 'Spatial collision hulls' is mildly redundant after naming AABB and OBB, but there is no filler and the payment note is cleanly separated in a parenthetical.

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?

Given an opaque 'payload' string parameter and no output schema, the description should specify what mesh representation to send and what the returned AABB/OBB looks like — neither is addressed. The payment flow is referenced via the cost note, but the settlement mechanics remain dependent on the schema's generic paymentSignature description, leaving an agent guessing at the call contract.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The pricing note adds a small layer of meaning to paymentSignature, but the payload's internal structure (mesh representation, vertex format, coordinate system) remains undisclosed, so the description does not meaningfully deepen parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Calculates'), names two concrete output types (AABB and OBB), and scopes the resource ('complex 3D meshes'). This differentiates it from close siblings like convert_bounding_box_format (converts rather than calculates) and bounding_volume_hierarchy_builder (hierarchical volumes, not single boxes).

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 when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative routing appears anywhere in the description. With geometrically adjacent siblings like mesh_convex_hull_quickhull, voxelize_mesh_grid_generator, and convert_bounding_box_format in the same toolset, an agent receives no help deciding which spatial-geometry tool fits its task.

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