create_multiple_viewports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and purpose. It does not say whether existing viewports are replaced or added to, whether a model or part must be present, or how the layout affects the viewport workspace. This is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 one focused sentence plus a terse args list with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the layout choices are compactly displayed.

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 tool is small and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not a major gap. Still, with no annotations and no notes on prerequisites or timeout behavior, the description leaves the operational context partially to inference.

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 description enumerates valid layout values (2x2, 3x1, 1x3, 2x1, 1x2), adding meaning beyond the plain string default in the schema. However, the timeout parameter is never mentioned, leaving it fully undocumented at 0% schema description coverage.

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 specific action ('create multiple viewports') and a purpose ('side-by-side comparison'), so an agent can tell what it does. It is distinct from single-viewport or capture-style tools like set_viewport_display and capture_viewport, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'for side-by-side comparison' implies a primary use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. An agent must infer when this tool is preferable to set_viewport_display or capture_viewport.

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