get_viewport_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and adds meaningful behavioral details: it warns about the 'viewport_unavailable' edge case when no GUI/pane exists, and notes that the response passes through the server-side 'apply_response_cap'. These go beyond the simple 'returns info' implication and the input schema, though it omits any mention of permissions or exact return format.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a field list and edge-case notes. Each sentence adds value, though the parenthetical 'add-viewport-control-tools，NO_UNDO' is somewhat cryptic but still informative as a tag-like metadata. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the main action, output fields, and a failure mode, which is decent for a simple getter. However, the unexplained parameter and the lack of any output schema leave a notable gap: the agent doesn't know what 'ctx' is or how the response is structured beyond a field list. Enough to be adequate but not fully complete.

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 only parameter 'ctx' is required but completely unexplained. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate; it only discusses return fields. The agent is left guessing what 'ctx' means, how to populate it, or what valid values are. This is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool returns the current SceneViewer viewport schema, listing specific fields (camera, viewport_type, display_set, shaded_mode, hydra_renderer). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling setter tools like set_viewport_camera or set_viewport_display, and from other getters targeting different contexts.

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 a clear use case: when you need to know the current viewport schema or its fields. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous – this is the tool for reading viewport information, while siblings are for setting or capturing. No misleading guidance.

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