rhino_cmd_bounding_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it uses rhinoscriptsyntax, that the result is parseable, and that it returns the corner points in a dict. It does not state whether the document is modified, what happens with no selection, or how coordinates are represented, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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?

Three short sentences plus compact Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: scope, implementation approach, and return summary. Information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless query tool with an output schema, the description covers the core use case. It omits important operational context: whether a selection is required, what happens when nothing is selected, and that the operation is read-only. The 'controller' mention adds a small ambiguity.

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?

Input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add; baseline per rubric is 4. The 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance' line is not represented in the schema and could confuse an agent into thinking a controller must be supplied, but since no user-facing parameters exist, the schema already fully documents the call.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return'), exact resource ('world-axis-aligned bounding box'), and scope ('selected objects'). The 'Uses rhinoscriptsyntax...' line further clarifies intent by targeting programmatic use, distinguishing it from a generic interactive bounding-box command.

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 makes the usage context clear: call it when you need the world-axis-aligned bounding box of currently selected objects. It does not explicitly name alternatives like rhino_bounding_box or rhino_selection_bbox, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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