project_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real context: projection depends on the viewport camera and a 30-degree vertical FOV verified for Cascadeur 2026.2.3. However, it says nothing about the return shape (which is critical since there is no output schema), what happens for missing/occluded objects, or whether the 3D viewport must be active.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the coordinate consumer and the camera/FOV caveat. No filler sentences.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the returned coordinate structure and failure behavior. It covers the projection model well but leaves those gaps, so an agent cannot fully predict the response.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'names' refers to scene object names and implies 'fov_deg' defaults to the 30-degree vertical FOV, but it leaves the expected name format (short name vs. path) and override semantics of fov_deg ambiguous.

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 and resource ('project scene objects ... to main-window coordinates in the 3D viewport') and names the downstream consumers (ui_click/ui_drag x/y). An agent can tell immediately that this converts object names into clickable screen coordinates, distinct from coordinate-free siblings like ui_tree or get_scene_info.

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 phrase 'for ui_click/ui_drag x/y' gives a clear use context: call this first when you know an object name but need pixel coordinates. It does not state exclusions (e.g. objects off-screen or behind the camera) or name alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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