Get bounding boxes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: unit and coordinate-frame semantics ('meters', 'z absolute, from project zero'), the 'overall' union result, and per-element error objects in the return array.

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?

Front-loads the return contract (what boxes, which coordinate system) before the use cases, and every sentence carries information. It is dense but not padded; a minor trim of the restated box field lists would make it tighter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing returns — and it does so precisely: per-element shape {guid, box3D?, box2D?}, the error branch {guid, error}, and the overall3D/overall2D unions. Nothing an agent needs to interpret results is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum 'kind' is already documented in schema as '3D (default), 2D (floor plan) or both', which the description essentially repeats. The description clarifies the box coordinate meaning but adds little parameter-level insight beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Returns axis-aligned bounding boxes of elements') and immediately specifies the coordinate system (project coordinates in meters), including the exact box shapes. An agent can tell this apart from full-geometry siblings like get_element_3d_geometry/2d_geometry by the 'bounding box' framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scenarios — 'frame a view, place new elements next to existing ones, or check overlaps' — which is clear contextual guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use get_element_3d_geometry for full geometry) or stating exclusions, so it does not reach a 5.

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