get_cloth_bounds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that results depend on simulation, that frozen pieces report nothing, and that a flat unpinned piece sits at z=200, plus the axis orientation details. This is rich, useful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core result, then adds axis context, behavioral caveats, and structured parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler.

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?

The description covers the return value, units, coordinate system, usage scenarios, simulation prerequisites, behavior edge cases, and parameter semantics. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, it provides everything an agent needs to decide when and how to call it.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters itself. It does so by defining region_min and region_max as box corners and pattern_index as a filter for specific pattern vertices. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 returns the 3D bounding box of the cloth with units and axis definitions. It is specific about the resource (cloth) and output (min/max x, y, z), though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_pattern_bounding_box.

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 gives explicit use cases: placing rods and props, and checking where a piece ended up. It does not provide comparisons or exclusions relative to alternative tools, but the intended context is clear.

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