get_viewport_info

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying exactly what settings are returned (shading mode, overlays, camera, clip distances), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose the return format or whether the output is a flat object or nested structure, though the output schema exists and likely covers that. No contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource ('Get viewport settings') and then enumerates the specific settings. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the key settings returned. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but the annotation readOnlyHint=true covers that. The output schema likely documents the return structure, so the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters.

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's purpose: 'Get viewport settings' and lists the specific settings it retrieves (shading mode, overlays, camera, clip distances). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_viewport_shading and set_viewport_camera, which are setters, and from get_render_settings, which targets render settings rather than viewport settings. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 description implies usage: use this when you need to read current viewport settings. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_render_settings for render settings. The context signals show no required parameters, so the tool is straightforward to invoke, but the description provides no explicit guidance on choosing it over related tools.

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