Ler camera 3D

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add detail beyond that. It does by listing all returned camera attributes. It does not mention potential errors or edge cases, but for a simple getter with no side effects, the field list is sufficient 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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It states the purpose and lists the returned fields without any filler. Every word earns its place, and it is highly efficient.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description is the sole source of return information. It comprehensively lists every field the camera state includes (projection, position, direction, up, FOV, scale), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the result. Nothing essential is missing for this getter 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?

There are 0 parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, and it correctly omits any parameter references.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retorna' = returns) and resource ('estado da camera 3D'), and enumerates the exact fields (projection, position, direction, up, FOV, scale). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling solibri_set_camera, which is the setter counterpart.

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 purpose is unambiguous: it reads the camera state. While it doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you need the camera state' or exclude other tools, the pairing with solibri_set_camera provides clear context. The description itself gives no exclusion guidance, but the scope is so specific that the intended usage is obvious.

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