clipping_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read-only' merely restates that, though the scope line (renderer global, per-material, ClippingGroup objects) adds modest context about what categories of clipping data are covered.

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 terse lines with the inspection tag front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though extremely minimal rather than richly informative.

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 zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool whose annotations already carry the behavioral profile, the description says enough to call it correctly and hints at the returned scope. No output schema exists, so return-shape detail is a minor omission.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and 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?

The '[INSPECT] Read-only' tag plus 'Clipping planes' names a resource and an implied read action, distinguishing it from the sibling set_clipping. It falls short of a clean verb+resource phrasing, but an agent can tell what it retrieves.

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 [INSPECT]/Read-only framing implies this is for inspecting rather than modifying, which contrasts implicitly with set_clipping. However, no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or named alternative is given, so usage must be inferred.

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