get_near_clip_plane

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it scopes the read to the 'active editor viewport' and notes the far value is an override, plus it publishes the exact return shape. It doesn't say what happens when no override is set, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two lines, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the exact return structure. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 provided, the description compensates by spelling out the returned fields and their types, which is exactly what an agent needs. The only gap is not clarifying the zero/default case for far_clip_plane_override.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the near clip plane (and far clip override)') scoped to the 'active editor viewport', which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from set_near_clip_plane / set_far_clip_plane. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting with the broader get_viewport_state, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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 its usage (a non-mutating inspection of the current viewport's clip settings) but gives no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_viewport_state. For a zero-arg getter this implied guidance is adequate but unremarkable.

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