Reads the current account's actual browser viewport in memory without opening a new browser or changing focus, so you can inspect the active learning page state.
Current account's actual viewport, memory-only; no new browser or focus change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question_number | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: the read comes from memory, spawns no browser, and does not steal focus. That is genuinely useful side-effect information. It says nothing, however, about what happens if no account/browser session exists, or the freshness of the cached viewport.
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?
It is one short sentence with zero filler, which is good, but the terseness tips into under-specification: 'memory-only' is a cryptic shorthand and the leading noun phrase lacks a verb. Efficiency here costs comprehension.
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 need not be described. But with no annotations and an entirely undocumented parameter, the definition leaves the agent guessing on the two things the structured fields do not cover: the role of question_number and the failure behavior when no owned browser exists.
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 single parameter question_number has 0% schema description coverage and a default of 0, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether it is required, what it selects, or what omitting it does — this is exactly the case where the description needed to compensate and did not.
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 phrase 'Current account's actual viewport' identifies the resource being read, and 'memory-only; no new browser or focus change' narrows what kind of read it is. But there is no verb — the agent must infer 'read' from the tool name — and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like use_window_viewport, owned_window_status, or inspect_owned_page.
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?
No condition for when to call this rather than use_window_viewport, observe_course_browser, or owned_window_status is given. The 'memory-only' note implies it is cheap/non-invasive, which hints at usage, but that is inference rather than guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.