view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it guarantees maximum quality without recompression, discloses that it returns an image plus text with a coordinate-translation formula, and explains the max_edge default rationale (avoiding the per-conversation image limit past 20 images). It does not mention any rate limits or file-size constraints, but for a read-only viewing tool this is solid coverage.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by one line per parameter, so it is easy to scan. It is somewhat long, especially the multi-line mode enumeration, but each line adds actionable meaning rather than filler.

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 4-parameter viewing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers every parameter, the return payload, and the default behavior. The one gap is the absence of routing guidance against sibling tools, which an agent on a crowded toolset would still need.

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%, yet the description documents all four parameters with meaning beyond the schema: path lists accepted formats and requires an absolute path, region defines [x1,y1,x2,y2] in original-pixel space and notes small regions get enlarged, mode enumerates four values with distinct interpretations, and max_edge gives the 200-2576 range and the reason for the 2000 default.

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 a concrete verb and resource: display an image or a region of it at maximum quality without recompression. This is clear and specific. However, it never contrasts itself with siblings like inspect, split_views, or sheet, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the schema alone.

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 mode parameter is explained with use cases (contrast for chamfers/seams/relief, edges for silhouette and form lines, tones for reading volume), which is genuinely useful guidance. But it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as inspect or compare_views, leaving the tool-selection decision to inference.

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