get_assembly_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 burden. It clearly discloses the return content (min/max/size in mm), and the verb 'Get' with zero parameters strongly signals a non-mutating query. It does not mention prerequisites like having an assembly open, but that is a minor omission for such a simple getter.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—verb, resource, scope, output, and units—is meaningful, and the most important scoping detail ('whole assembly') appears early.

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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and understand its result. It states what is returned and in what units, making it complete for an operation of this simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters)Skip: schema coverage is 100% by default, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to add beyond what the description already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('bounding box of the whole assembly'), and specifies the output fields and units (min/max/size in mm). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tool 'get_bounding_box' by the 'whole assembly' scope.

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 implies the tool is for the whole assembly rather than individual parts, but it does not explicitly compare against 'get_bounding_box' or state when one should be preferred. The usage context is reasonably clear from 'whole assembly', but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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