get_bounding_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns conceptually, but does not mention units, coordinate frame, axis-aligned versus tight box details, read-only nature, or behavior with hidden/empty parts. It is not misleading, but it is thin.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 and no annotations, so the description should explain what the response looks like (e.g., bounding box corners, units, coordinate system). It does not, leaving an agent uncertain how to consume the result. The required IDs are fully documented in the schema, but the output side is incomplete.

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 parameters (documentId, workspaceId, elementId) already have plain descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter context, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 names the action ('Get') and the resource ('tight bounding box of all parts in a Part Studio'). It is specific enough to convey the core intent, though it does not differentiate itself from related siblings like get_body_details or measure.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as measure, get_mass_properties, or get_body_details. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated, so the agent must infer usage context.

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