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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (latitude, longitude, altitude, angle), which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not mention format or units, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key return fields. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary length or 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?

For a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned. However, it lacks specifics such as coordinate reference system, units, or response structure, which would be helpful. Given the low complexity, this is not a major gap.

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 tool has 0 parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 ('获取当前相机视角信息' = get current camera view info) and lists the exact data points (经纬度、高度、角度). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like setView and flyTo, which modify the view.

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 implies usage for retrieving the current camera view, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Context makes it clear enough, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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