get_bounding_box

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and clarifies the data source, but it does not disclose coordinate space, units, whether cooking occurs, failure behavior for invalid paths, or whether the node must be cooked beforehand.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and concise, but the Args section is redundant with the schema and adds no value. It is not bloated, yet the redundancy prevents a higher score.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not specify what the returned bounding box looks like (min/max, center/size), what units or space it uses, or how errors like missing geometry are handled, so an agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate, but the 'Args: node_path: Node path.' line merely restates the schema property title. It adds no detail about path syntax, absolute vs relative paths, wildcards, or expected formatting.

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 first sentence names a specific operation ('Get the bounding box') and a resource ('SOP node's geometry'), so an agent can infer what the tool returns. It is distinguishable from broad geometry tools like get_geometry_info or get_scene_info, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling overlap.

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 about when to use this tool instead of related geometry tools such as get_geometry_info or sample_geometry. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario without any confirmation or exclusion criteria.

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