rhino_bounding_box

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that boxes are merged into a union, which is beyond the annotations. It does not disclose return format details, but an output schema exists to cover that. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and states the core behavior with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple query tool.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, so much of the context burden is already met by structured data. However, the description omits any guidance on how object_ids are obtained, whether the bounding box is in document coordinates, and how this differs from selection-based bounding box tools. Adequate for a minimal query but with clear gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain parameter meaning but only vaguely hints at object_ids via 'one or more objects'. The doc_id parameter does have a schema description, but object_ids has none, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining what object IDs are or how they relate to other tools. The description adds minimal value over 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('union bounding box'), and clarifies the input scope ('one or more objects'). It conveys the core function precisely, and the word 'union' distinguishes this from per-object bounding queries. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rhino_selection_bbox or rhino_cmd_bounding_box, leaving some differentiation to the name and schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that this operates on explicitly supplied object_ids rather than the current selection, nor any comparison to rhino_selection_bbox or rhino_cmd_bounding_box. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the parameter schema.

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