Get3DBoundingBoxes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavior: bounding boxes are calculated from the global origin in the 3D view, and the output array corresponds to the input array order. It lacks error, empty-input, or unit details.

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 three front-loaded sentences with no redundant restatement of the tool name. The parenthetical provenance adds little, but overall it is compact and easy to parse.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description should specify the bounding-box return format. It only says an array of bounding boxes is returned and mentions the global origin, omitting coordinate representation, units, and handling of missing elements.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. It clarifies that the input is an array of elements and that the output aligns with that input, but it does not explain the element identifier structure or validation behavior, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 and resource: getting 3D bounding boxes of elements. It also clarifies the calculation reference and output mapping. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling getters such as GetDetailsOfElements or GetZoneBoundaries.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only explains what the tool does, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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