cavalry_get_bounding_box

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states what the tool does without mentioning return format, coordinate system, or any side effects. Since this is a get operation, the read-only nature is implied, but no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 sentence with no redundant fluff. It front-loads the key function and includes a useful hint about positioning. Every word contributes 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the action but does not explain what the bounding box represents (e.g., units, coordinate system) or the return structure. Without annotations or an output schema, this leaves some uncertainty, but the low complexity prevents a lower score.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'layerId' described as 'The layer ID'. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter, but the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage. No gap exists in parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the function: 'Get the bounding box of a layer'. It specifies the resource (layer) and the operation (get bounding box), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_attribute or get_scene_layers. The parenthetical 'useful for positioning' adds context without ambiguity.

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 'useful for positioning' provides a clear use case, implying when to use the tool (when positioning elements). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5 but provides more than just an implied usage.

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