get_viewer_api_guide

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a comprehensive guide' without mentioning output format, authentication needs, or any side effects. As a read operation, more clarity on what a 'guide' entails is needed.

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 a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. Every word earns its place, but it could provide more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and the single parameter, the description should explain what the guide contains (format, depth). It only says 'comprehensive', which is vague. The tool's purpose is reasonably clear but insufficient for the agent to understand the response shape.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Viewer 3D API topic'. The enum values are listed but not explained, so the parameter semantics are not enhanced.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'comprehensive guide for a specific Viewer 3D API topic'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_api_reference by specifying the context (Viewer 3D API), but does not differentiate from get_extension_starter or search_trimble_connect_docs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_api_reference or search_trimble_connect_docs. It does not specify prerequisites or context for choosing this tool.

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