view_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that images cost tokens, that sketches are hidden by default and restored afterward, and that focus zooms while preserving view direction. It does not discuss permissions or failure modes, but for a local CAD viewing tool the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then organizes parameter guidance under Args. It is appropriately sized for an eight-parameter visual tool, though a few phrases could be tightened.

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 complex visual tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains what is returned, why to use it, token cost, hidden-sketch behavior, and most parameter meanings. The only notable gap is that it does not mention the instance parameter, though the schema already describes that field.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents view values, width/height token-cost tradeoff, background options, focus behavior, sketch visibility restoration, and the meaning of the up axis. It adds substantial meaning beyond the sparse schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns pictures of the active document as viewable images. It also distinguishes itself from numeric inspection tools by explaining that it shows geometry issues the numbers alone do not reveal.

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?

It gives a clear use case, checking visual correctness such as flange orientation or parts floating off-frame, and contrasts this with numerical tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or when-not to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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