get_prim_bounds

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the returned bounding-box components, but it omits important spatial semantics such as whether the box is world-space or local-space and whether child prims are included.

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 short sentences, front-loads the core operation, and uses no wasted wording.

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 a fully documented single parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. The main gap is that it does not clarify coordinate-space behavior for bounding-box calculations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and prim_path is documented with an example in the schema. The description does not add further meaning about prim_path beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the bounding box of a prim,' and enumerates returned components like center, dimensions, min/max corners, and diagonal. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as get_prim_properties, though it does not explicitly route agents away from alternatives.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Use this for spatial reasoning -- understanding sizes, overlap, distances.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not name exclusions or alternative tools.

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