cad_view

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

Annotations already signal mutating behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds little beyond listing operations. It does not explain side effects of regen, what 'capture' writes, or which state changes occur. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 with no filler. It is concise and scannable, though its brevity comes at the cost of essential parameter-action mapping details.

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 tool with 9 parameters, multiple distinct actions, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine which parameters apply to which action, what capture returns, or what side effects regen and view changes have.

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 compensate. It hints at viewName for named views and width/height/path/overwrite for capture, but it does not map parameters to specific actions or explain geometric parameters like delta, window, or handles.

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 names the resource (view) and specific verbs: zoom, pan, orbit, switch named views, regen, capture. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like cad_inspect or cad_measure, but the action vocabulary makes its view-navigation scope reasonably clear.

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 about when to use cad_view versus alternatives such as cad_inspect, cad_measure, or cad_draw. The action enum implies a view-manipulation tool, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.

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