cascadeur_get_camera

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the purpose of restoring a view but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., what data is returned, format, or side effects). The description does not contradict the annotations, and with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate for slightly enriching context beyond them.

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 zero filler. It leads with the verb and resource, states the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it a model of conciseness.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It says what it reads and why. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., position/rotation fields), but with no output schema and a simple getter, this is a minor gap. The complexity is low enough that the description is nearly complete, though a note about return value would push it to 5.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty (100% coverage). The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description requires no parameter explanation. There is no missing parameter information to compensate for, so a 4 is justified.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('active viewport camera'), and the purpose ('restoring a view after hand/body closeups'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like cascadeur_set_camera (write operation) and cascadeur_capture_viewport (likely image capture) without needing to name them explicitly.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool ('for restoring a view after hand/body closeups'), which tells an agent the intended scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the purpose strongly implies when the read-only camera getter is appropriate versus a setter or capture tool.

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