get_viewport_camera

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format (JSON with position and rotation Euler angles in degrees) and a notable limitation (FOV is not available via Python bindings). This goes beyond a bare description, though it doesn't mention potential failures or side effects, which are unlikely for a read operation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and provides essential return details in a clear second sentence. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no repetition of the tool name or obvious filler.

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 parameterless getter, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the format of the values, and one known limitation. An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered both structurally and descriptively. No critical information needed to invoke this tool correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter behavior to document. Schema coverage is trivially complete. The description appropriately does not waste space discussing parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 ('get'), a precise resource ('active editor viewport camera'), and the exact data returned (position and rotation). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_viewport_camera and capture_viewport, so an agent can select it without confusion.

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 makes it clear this is for reading the active editor viewport camera's transform, which implies when to use it: whenever the agent needs the camera's position or orientation. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is sufficiently clear for a simple getter with no parameters.

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