camera_intrinsics_projection_matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the computation nature and mentions the cost (0.020 USDC on Base L2), which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects, and it doesn't mention error handling or output format.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and key inputs. There is zero wasted text, and the cost detail is appended as a bonus. Ideal for a tool description.

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?

For a computation tool with no output schema and a generic payload parameter, the description is thin. It doesn't specify the return format, the required structure of the payload, or any edge cases. The cost is mentioned but not the settlement mechanics. Given the complexity of camera intrinsics, this is insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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% (payload and paymentSignature both described), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by listing the mathematical inputs (FOV, focal length, etc.), but it doesn't specify how they should be structured within the payload string, leaving ambiguity about the exact expected format.

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 computes 4x4 perspective and orthographic camera projection matrices, listing key inputs like FOV, focal length, sensor dimensions, and clipping planes. It's specific enough to distinguish it from many 3D-related siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer suitable usage contexts.

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