Get One Coordination Issue Viewpoint (Model Manager Or Legacy BimViewpoint, REST

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the resolution behavior (viewpoint_uuid vs bim_viewpoint_id), the two backend paths (MM and Legacy), and data merging (primary, position). No contradictions.

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 well-structured with bullet points, code formatting, and clear separation of MM and Legacy paths. It is front-loaded with the key resolution logic. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value. Minor room for tightening.

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 complexity of the tool (two backend paths, data merging, legacy fallback), the description covers all essential aspects: resolution logic, data returned for each path, required parameters, and API endpoint reference. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains return structure. Complete for agent usage.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the dual nature of viewpoint_id (UUID vs numeric), noting that 'included' is ignored, and listing required parameters. This helps the agent understand parameter usage.

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?

Clearly states it resolves a join row on a coordination issue viewpoint by matching viewpoint_uuid first, then legacy bim_viewpoint_id. It explicitly says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Coordination Issues by its identifier.' This distinguishes it from other coordination issue endpoints.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (fetching full details of a coordination issue viewpoint) and describes the resolution logic. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools, though the context is sufficient for the agent.

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