get_body_bounds

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

The description does not contradict any annotations (none provided). It reveals the tool returns bounding box measurements in mm, but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if body doesn't exist) or whether the operation is read-only, though the verb 'get' strongly implies it.

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, concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without extraneous words. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return data adequately. However, it could briefly note that coordinates are in global space or body-relative for absolute completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the output format (min/max/size/center in mm), which is not captured in the schema, aiding in parameter interpretation.

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 tool retrieves the bounding box of a body, specifying the returned properties (min, max, size, center) and units (mm). This uniquely identifies its function among sibling tools, which are primarily creation/modification operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_design_info or list_bodies. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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