sw_bbox

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the output content and units, which compensates for the absent output schema. However, it says nothing about whether it reads the active document, a selected body, or the whole assembly, nor whether it requires an open document first.

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 short sentence with the units front-loaded before the returned fields; nothing is wasted. It is slightly too terse to be a model of front-loading, reading as a fragment without an explicit action verb.

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 zero-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the return values and their units. It leaves a real gap in scope: which document, body, or component the 'global' box applies to, and how multiple bodies would be represented.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter detail, and the named treat values (min, max, size, center) describe the result rather than inputs.

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?

Names the resource precisely (global bounding box) and enumerates the returned components (min, max, size, center) plus units (mm), which cleanly separates it from siblings like sw_mass_properties or sw_list_bodies. The verb is implicit and no target document/body scope is stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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 reach for this tool versus alternatives such as sw_mass_properties or sw_doc_info, and no prerequisites or context are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the returned field list.

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