view_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the 64x64 limit and coordinate prefix default, but does not explain error handling for oversized inputs, output format beyond 'grid text', or behavior when reading multi-layer documents. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read pixels as grid text') and includes a critical constraint and alternative. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: explains the tool's function, size limit, and alternative for larger inputs. Lacks details on return format and error cases, but sufficient for most use cases.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context that output is 'grid text' and mentions the coords default (on for width >=24). This adds value beyond schema descriptions.

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 it reads pixels as grid text, specifies a max size of 64x64, and suggests alternatives (view_window or region) for larger canvases. It distinguishes itself from siblings like view_window and view_tiled.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use alternatives: 'use view_window or a region for bigger canvases'. This helps the agent choose the correct tool among many view-related siblings.

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