sch_get_primitive_bbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the batching fact ('one or more'), and omits return characteristics such as coordinate space, units, or behavior for invalid primitive IDs.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing unnecessary is present.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what a bounding box result looks like (fields, units, frame of reference), especially since schematic coordinates are non-obvious. It confirms what is returned but not its shape, which is a real gap for a geometry-returning tool.

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%, so document, instance_id and primitiveIds are all documented in the schema (including guidance to get UUIDs from list_instances/editor_get_open_tabs). The phrase 'one or more' loosely confirms the array semantics but adds nothing the schema does not already say; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('bounding box of schematic primitives'), making it distinguishable from sch_get_primitive and sch_get_primitive_type at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or explaining how the bbox result differs from them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as sch_get_primitive or pcb_get_primitives_in_region. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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