get_view_type

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful output-shape information with the inline return type { view_type: string, view_type_index: int }, which is meaningful because no output schema exists.

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 two short pieces of information: the operation and the return shape. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, no-parameter getter with rich annotations, the description supplies the operation and the return shape needed to call and interpret the result. No output schema exists, so including the return object is especially valuable and no critical context is missing.

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 zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a burden. The empty input schema is appropriate, and the description correctly does not introduce undocumented parameters. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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: reading the current view type of the active level editor viewport. This clearly distinguishes it from setter tools like set_view_type, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or contrast with broader viewport-state tools such as get_viewport_state.

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 by saying it reads the current view type, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to choose this over get_viewport_state, get_viewport_fov, or similar viewport inspection tools.

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