get_expected_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is safe. The description adds the notion of a 'frustum cone' which clarifies the geometric calculation, but does not explain what output is returned (e.g., a list of entity IDs or count). It also does not mention any assumptions about entity position representation or coordinate system. Since annotations cover the mutation safety, this is a pass with minor gaps.

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 sentence that is concise and directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the core concept and uses domain-specific terms that are likely familiar to the target agent. No filler or redundant text.

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?

Given the tool is a read-only calculation with no output schema, the description is fairly complete for understanding its inputs and purpose. It lacks explicit details on return format or any edge cases, but with comprehensive parameter schemas and safe annotations, an agent can likely call it correctly. The breath of sibling tools suggests it's part of a simulation context, and the description fits in well. A minor gap is the absence of what 'visible' means in terms of occlusion or whether entities behind obstacles are considered, but this is acceptable for a 5-parameter tool.

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 100%, so every parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds a hint about the frustum cone but does not elaborate on how parameters like fov_degrees or max_distance interact. The description effectively restates the purpose without adding new parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema is comprehensive.

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 clearly states the tool's function: calculating which entities should be visible from an observer's pose and field of view. It specifies the verb 'calculate', the resource 'entities', and the context 'observer's pose and field of view frustum cone'. It also clearly differs from sibling tools like query_entities or get_spatial_map, which are about querying or retrieving spatial info, not computing visibility.

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 its use case: when you need to know what an observer can see given a pose and frustum. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like query_entities, though the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer it. There is no mention of when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently specific to avoid major confusion. This is adequate but lacks explicit routing to alternatives.

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