world_to_view

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the transformation type and matrix convention but lacks details on return format, homogeneous coordinates, or error handling (e.g., non-invertible matrix). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.

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?

Lacks output schema and does not describe the return value (e.g., format, homogeneous coordinates). Given the technical nature of the transformation, the description should specify if the result is a 3D point or 4D homogeneous vector. Incomplete for effective use.

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 50% (viewMatrix has a description, worldPoint has none). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the matrix convention. WorldPoint's structure is fully defined in the schema, so the description does not degrade value.

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 exactly what the tool does: transforms a world-space 3D position to view space using a supplied view matrix. It specifies 'row-major' and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'world_to_screen' which go further, and 'view_to_clip' which starts from view space.

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 (when you have a world point and a view matrix) but provides no explicit when-to-use/not-use or alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that 'look_at_view_matrix' can generate the required matrix.

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