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 full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't state whether geometry is cooked on demand, what coordinate space the bounds use, whether it returns min/max corners or a size, or how missing/empty geometry is handled.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the core action, which is appropriate for a simple getter. The 'Args:' block is redundant since it restates the schema, but it does not bloat the definition.

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 should explain the return value (e.g., bounds format and coordinate space), but it does not. For a geometry query tool with zero annotation coverage, key call-relevant details are 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 description coverage is 0% and there is one parameter. The only parameter text, 'node_path: Node path.', merely repeats the schema's own title ('Node Path') and adds no format, path syntax, examples, or meaning beyond the structured field.

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 and resource ('Get the bounding box of a SOP node's geometry'), so the agent knows what operation is performed. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as get_geometry_info, get_node_info, or get_prim_intrinsics, so sibling disambiguation relies on outside knowledge.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting this tool over alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the node must be cooked or selected). An agent must infer all usage context.

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