viewer_isolate

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that the command is broadcast but currently ignored due to a pending frontend handler. This alerts the agent to a potential no-op. The destructiveHint annotation is consistent with the description.

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 sentences: first states the core function, second adds critical behavioral disclosure. 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 purpose, parameter meaning, and current limitation. It assumes the viewer is open (implied by 'in the open viewer'). With an output schema present but not described, the description is sufficient for a simple 1-parameter tool.

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 parameter 'pnt_ids' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that these are the IDs to isolate to, but lacks detail on format or constraints. The parameter is not required, but no default behavior is described.

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's purpose: 'Isolates (hides everything except) the given pnt_ids in the open viewer.' It uses a specific verb 'isolates' and specifies the resource 'viewer'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like viewer_clear or viewer_select.

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 when to use (to hide all except given point IDs) but does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. No comparison with sibling tools is given.

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