assets-get-texture-content-bounding-box

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns the bounding box of the content, accounting for transparent padding. It does not mention any side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but the operation is read-only and non-destructive, which is implied.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action, the second adds rationale and alternative. Front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what it does, why (transparent padding), and when to use an alternative. No gaps given the complexity.

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 describes the 'texture' parameter with 'key' and optional 'frame', and schema descriptions cover these. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get the bounding box of the content of the given texture.' It explains the context (transparent padding) and provides a use case (placing objects with touching edges). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'assets-get-texture-size' by specifying when to use each.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'If you need to know the size of the whole image, use the assets-get-texture-size tool.' It provides context about transparent padding, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool beyond that.

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