get_element_local_bbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the return content (min/max XYZ and dimensions) and the key behavior that no world transform is applied. This goes beyond a simple 'get bounding box' and clarifies the coordinate system, though it doesn't address error behavior or edge cases.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by return details and use cases. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 covers the key aspects needed for a simple query tool: what it returns, the coordinate system, and use cases. It doesn't explain error handling or parameter specifics, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 descriptions for model_id or global_id, and the description does not elaborate on their meaning or format. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 states the tool gets the local-space bounding box of an element, specifying it returns min/max XYZ and dimensions in the element's own coordinate system. It distinguishes this from the sibling get_bounding_box by highlighting 'no world transform applied'.

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 provides two explicit use cases: mounting axis prediction and recessed fixture detection. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives for world-space bounding boxes, but the local vs. world contrast is implied.

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