get_bounding_box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully states the return value and coordinate frame, which gives the agent a clear behavioral model. However, it does not mention failure behavior for missing objects or whether the object must be in the current document.

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?

A single, tightly-worded sentence with no filler. The core behavior and coordinate system are front-loaded, and every word contributes 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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return value details are not the description's responsibility. Still, the description leaves doc_name semantics and document-selection behavior implicit, and provides no guidance for a multi-document environment. It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. 'object_name' is reasonably inferable, but 'doc_name' and its optional/current-document semantics are completely undocumented. The agent would have to guess the role of doc_name.

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 names the specific verb ('Return'), the resource ('an object's axis-aligned bounding box'), and the coordinate space ('document coordinates'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling inspection tools like inspect_object, inspect_shape, and measure_distance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as inspect_shape or measure_distance, nor any mention of required document context. The description only says what the tool does, not when it should or should not be selected.

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