get_viewport_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the specific settings returned (shading mode, overlays, camera, clip distances). It does not contradict annotations and provides insight into the tool's read-only output scope. However, it does not describe return format or edge cases, which is acceptable given the output schema.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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?

This is a simple getter with no parameters and an output schema. The description fully captures the tool's purpose and scope by naming the primary settings returned. Given the low complexity, no further details are needed for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds semantic meaning by listing the settings that will be returned, even though no parameter explanations are needed. It does not repeat schema info since there is nothing in the 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'viewport settings' with concrete examples (shading mode, overlays, camera, clip distances). This distinguishes it from sibling setter tools like set_viewport_shading and set_viewport_camera, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The getter vs setter distinction is implied by the verb 'Get' and sibling names, but there is no explicit statement about when to choose this over get_scene_info or capture_viewport. Usage context is only implied, not directly stated.

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