daz_get_bounding_box

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, permissions, or error handling. While the description hints at read-only nature, it does not explicitly confirm safety or constraints.

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?

Description is well-structured: starts with purpose, then lists return values, provides usage context, documents the single argument, and includes a return example. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, returns, and example. It could be improved by mentioning edge cases (e.g., node not found) or assumption that node exists.

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 only parameter, 'node_label', is explained as 'Display label of the node', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition. This clarifies that it expects a human-readable label, not an internal identifier.

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?

Description clearly states it gets the axis-aligned bounding box of a node, specifying exact return values (min/max, center, dimensions). This is distinct from sibling tools like daz_get_world_position or daz_check_overlap, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides specific use cases: auto-calculating camera distance, collision detection, anchoring lights. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives or state when not to use it, which would improve guidance.

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