tc_create_viewpoint_from_viewer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the viewpoint is created from the live viewer state (camera, selection, snapshot), that the snapshot is attached server-side (never passes through the model), and that the 'Agent Eyes' panel must be open. However, it does not cover potential errors, rate limits, or what happens if the viewer state is not captured.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a short typical flow. It front-loads the core purpose and provides necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

While the description explains the input and source, it does not mention the return value or output format. Since no output schema exists, it would be helpful to state what the tool returns (e.g., viewpoint GUID or success status). Additionally, error conditions or state requirements (e.g., viewer must have loaded a model) are not covered. This is adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'includeSelection' and 'includeSnapshot' correspond to the live viewer state components (IFC GUIDs and PNG snapshot). It also clarifies that the snapshot is attached server-side. This extra context helps an AI understand how parameters relate to the tool's operation.

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 action ('Create a BCF viewpoint'), the resource ('on an existing topic'), and the context ('from the user's LIVE 3D viewer state'). It also mentions specific elements like perspective camera, IFC GUIDs, and PNG snapshot. The tool is well-differentiated from siblings like tc_bcf_create_topic, which creates a topic rather than a viewpoint.

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 a typical workflow: first create a topic with tc_bcf, then use this tool with the returned topic GUID. It implicitly indicates when to use (after topic creation and with a live viewer) and the prerequisite of having the 'Agent Eyes' extension panel open. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the given flow is clear enough for an AI agent.

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