catia_bounding_box

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying the output (minimum/maximum corners and overall dimensions) and the scope ('element or whole solid'). It also clarifies the bounding box is axis-aligned, which is a meaningful behavioral trait not covered by 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and outputs; the second provides practical use cases. All information is front-loaded and each 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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent will receive (corners and dimensions). It does not mention units or coordinate system, but these are not critical for an agent to call the tool correctly. The description is sufficient for basic usage, though it could note that the element must be a referenceable object, which is implied by 'element'.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'element', describing it as a 'Reference token. Defaults to the part's main body.' The description's mention of 'element or whole solid' aligns with the parameter but does not add new syntactic or semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 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 function: reporting the axis-aligned bounding box of an element or whole solid, including minimum/maximum corners and dimensions. It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('axis-aligned bounding box'), and the context of sizing stock or envelope checking distinguishes it from generic measurement tools like catia_measure.

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 provides concrete usage scenarios ('sizing stock material' and 'checking a part fits an envelope'), which implicitly tell the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling measurement tools (e.g., catia_measure, catia_measure_distance) or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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