spatial_view_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The leading verb 'Read' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose whether any state is touched, whether the viewport must be open, how expensive the query is, or other behavioral traits. The KB reference and example do not compensate for this.

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 purpose is stated in a single front-loaded sentence, followed by a KB link and a compact call example. There is minimal waste, though the KB pointer is more of a reference than core guidance and adds little for tool selection.

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 tool with no annotations and zero parameter descriptions, the definition provides only a high-level read list, an example, and a KB pointer. It does not cover parameter meaning, selection criteria among the large spatial_* sibling family, or operational context, leaving material gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the three parameters, and the description does not explain limit, include_nearby, or precisely define nearby_radius beyond its name and the example call. The example demonstrates one parameter but leaves the boolean and limit semantics to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and names three concrete resources: viewport camera context, selected actors, and nearby actors. This clearly identifies it as a read-only scene-context tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools.

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 the tool is for observing the current spatial context, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. With many overlapping sibling tools such as spatial_query_actors, spatial_scene_overview, and spatial_proximity_map, an agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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