Get 3D view settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the units convention ('Angles in degrees') and the shape of the returned state, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, caching, or failure behavior beyond what annotations give.

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 dense sentence but front-loaded with the verb+resource before the structural enumeration, and every clause describes an actual returned field. It is long, but the length is justified because no output schema exists to carry the return shape.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the entire burden of describing the response, and it does so thoroughly: projection modes, style, window size, filters, cut planes, rendering and model extent, plus the degree convention. Nothing an agent needs to consume the result is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly refrains from inventing any.

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+resource ('Returns the 3D view state') and enumerates the returned structure in detail. It is unambiguous what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_view_settings or set_3d_view, so an agent must infer which getter applies to a 3D context.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With siblings such as get_view_settings, set_3d_view, show_in_3d and capture_view in the list, the absence of routing information is a real gap.

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