List points of view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation by specifying the return format: active is visitor|aerial, rows contain i,name,x,y,z,yaw,pitch,fov, and units are cm and degrees. No contradictions with 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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core information and provides structure and units immediately. It wastes no words and even includes a pointer to the relevant sibling tool. This is appropriately sized for what is essentially a no-input, list-returning tool.

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 parameters, an output schema already present, and read-only annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps: the data shape, units, and the mutation alternative. There is nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly that 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?

There are no parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description adds semantic value by explaining the meaning of the output values (cm and degrees) and the active field's allowed values. This is the baseline for zero-parameter tools and slightly better because it pre-explains the response fields.

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 title 'List points of view' supplies the verb, and the description identifies the resource ('Stored points of view') and the exact payload shape. It distinguishes this from its sibling edit_cameras by explicitly naming it as the modification path. However, the description itself is a noun phrase rather than a verb clause, so it relies on the title for the action.

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 implies the usage context: to view stored points of view, call this tool; to change them, use edit_cameras. This routes the agent to the correct sibling for mutation, but it doesn't state additional conditions like when not to use it or prerequisites. Still, for a simple list tool with zero parameters, the guidance is sufficient.

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