get_bounds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the function, not how it behaves (e.g., whether it's read-only, what geometry types are supported, or the output format). The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description lacks essential behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise for the minimal information provided.

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 low parameter count and existence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions and lacks usage guidance, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 input schema has one parameter 'geometry' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning, failing to specify the expected format (e.g., WKT, GeoJSON). This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 action (get) and resource (bounds) and the input (geometry). It is specific enough to convey the basic purpose, though it could be more precise by specifying 'bounding box' to differentiate from sibling tools like 'envelope'.

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 (e.g., 'envelope', 'minimum_rotated_rectangle'), nor any conditions or prerequisites. The agent is left to guess the appropriate context.

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