get_bounding_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns min/max/size values in millimeters, which is the key behavioral output. It does not mention side effects or behavior when no part is loaded, but 'get' implies a read-only operation and the core return semantics are clear.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and immediately provides the essential output details. There is no filler and every clause adds value.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the scope, the returned quantities, and the units. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, so there is no ambiguity for the agent to resolve. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and no parameter semantics are missing.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('bounding box of the current part'), and the exact output components (min/max/size in mm). It also distinguishes this from the sibling get_assembly_bounding_box by explicitly scoping it to the current part.

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 phrase 'current part' gives clear context that this is for part-level bounding boxes rather than assembly-level ones, so the agent can infer the relevant alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the alternative directly.

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