Afficher la revue de sélection du viewer 3D

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool shows an interactive UI with action buttons (create BCF, create ToDo, show properties), implying potential side effects if buttons are clicked. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool itself mutates any state. With annotations missing, this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 concise: two sentences covering purpose, usage context, prerequisite, and alternative. It is front-loaded with the primary action and well-structured.

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 no parameters or output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use, what it requires, and a sibling alternative. There is no missing information for an agent to decide when to invoke this 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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter information because none exists. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is no need for parameter explanation.

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 shows an interactive MCP App that reviews selected objects in the 3D viewer. It specifies the resource (current selection) and actions (review, with buttons). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_current_viewer_state by noting the UI vs plain data difference.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user asks to review/see their current selection'. Provides a clear alternative: 'For plain data without UI, use get_current_viewer_state instead'. Also includes a prerequisite: 'Requires the Agent Eyes panel open'.

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