get_bounding_box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that boxes are 'KiCad-computed' (authoritative source) and explains the include_text effect, but omits units, coordinate system, and whether the operation has any side effects or permissions requirements.

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 single-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact Args block. No wasted prose, though the Args formatting is slightly redundant with a schema that already names both parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and both parameters are covered in the description. The main gap is the absence of any statement about units or coordinate reference for the returned boxes, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that item_ids are KIID strings sourced 'from any list_* tool' and that include_text controls inclusion of child reference/value text in footprint boxes. These add real meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return KiCad-computed bounding boxes for the given item IDs.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_footprint_geometry or get_board_summary. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those neighbors, 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?

Usage is only implied through the parenthetical '(from any list_* tool)', which hints at a workflow but never states when to reach for this tool over alternatives like get_footprint_geometry or check_placement. No when-not guidance or exclusions are given.

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