submit_viewer_reply

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, which indicates this is not a read-only operation, and destructiveHint=false. However, the description does not clarify the side effects of this operation beyond 'acknowledge'. It does not state whether it commits state, sends data, or is a simple acknowledgment, nor does it mention any required permissions or side effects. The description is too terse to disclose behavioral traits, but it does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise, only 10 words, and front-loads the verb 'acknowledge'. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. The structure is efficient in terms of length, but it sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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?

The tool has 2 required parameters, an output schema, and nested objects, indicating moderate complexity. The description does not explain the output schema's role, nor does it provide enough context about when to use this tool given 26 sibling tools in the 3D viewer domain. The lack of usage guidance and parameter semantics leaves the agent inadequately informed for correct invocation.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the parameters. The description mentions 'acknowledge a rendered command result' but does not explain the meaning of 'scene_id' or 'reply'. It fails to clarify that 'reply' might contain a command response or specific fields, and 'scene_id' likely references a scene context. Since there are nested objects and no schema descriptions, the description must compensate but does not.

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 'App-only transport: acknowledge a rendered command result' uses specific verb 'acknowledge' and resource 'rendered command result', but it is vague about what action the tool performs. It does not clearly state that it submits a viewer reply to complete a command, and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like read_viewer_data or manage_3d_views. The phrase 'App-only transport' is technical jargon that may confuse agents.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for providing a reply to a rendered command result, nor does it indicate that it might be used after a command has been executed. There is no discussion of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the use case.

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