get_viewport_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about permissions, whether an invalid pane_name errors or returns defaults, or what categories of viewport settings are returned. That leaves the agent guessing on behavior that matters for calling it correctly.

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 short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, but its brevity is also the source of the missing detail rather than a deliberate trade-off.

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 simple — one optional parameter, no output schema — but the description omits the default-pane behavior and the scope of returned settings, which are exactly what an agent needs here. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source for that context and it does not supply it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter, and it does not. It never clarifies that pane_name is optional, what identifier format it expects, or what happens when it is omitted, even though it is the only parameter and the tool's entire targeting mechanism.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('viewport settings'), and a scope ('for a pane tab'), which clearly separates it from mutation siblings like set_viewport_camera or set_viewport_display. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the read-vs-write distinction is evident from the verb alone.

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 versus siblings such as get_scene_info or get_cop_info, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The most important usage question — whether omitting pane_name reads the active pane or errors — is left entirely unstated.

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