rhino_get_bounding_box

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful detail about the output components (min/max points, dimensions, center), which goes beyond the bare 'get bounding box' and helps the agent understand what to expect. It does not contradict annotations and adds enough context for a read-only query tool.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the core action and result. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 the output schema exists (context indicates 'has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values in detail. The tool is simple (one required parameter), read-only, and the description conveys what it returns. Missing details like units or coordinate system are likely covered by the output schema or are not critical for invoking the tool. The definition is complete for an agent to call 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 only parameter, 'guid', is described in the schema as 'Object GUID' with a required field. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter. Since schema_description_coverage is 0% from the description's perspective, but the schema itself provides adequate documentation for this trivial parameter, the description does not need to compensate. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('axis-aligned bounding box of an object'), and the specific returned data (min/max points, dimensions, center). This distinguishes it from other query tools like rhino_get_area or rhino_get_volume, and the tool name reinforces the intent 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 description implies it should be used when an axis-aligned bounding box is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling analysis tools (e.g., rhino_get_area, rhino_get_volume) or state when not to use it. An agent could infer the appropriate context, but there is no explicit guidance on selection criteria or exclusions.

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