view_axes

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: 'computed analytically (no projection performed)' and shows an example output with sign flips. This goes beyond annotations to explain the computation nature.

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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage context, third shows example output, then Args. It is front-loaded and concise, though the example output could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity.

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 that there is no output schema shown, the description fully compensates with a clear example JSON output. It covers all 3 parameters (1 required), provides defaults, and links to a sibling. The tool is simple, and the description leaves no ambiguity.

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%, but the description includes an 'Args:' section with brief descriptions for all three parameters. It links viewport_origin to the sibling project_to_viewport and specifies defaults for viewport_up and look_at, adding meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool returns the world-to-page axis mapping, computed analytically. It explicitly says 'Use this BEFORE rendering a projected view' and describes catching axis swaps, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_view or align_check.

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 clear context: 'Use this BEFORE rendering a projected view' and explains the benefit of catching axis swaps early. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to understand its purpose relative to siblings.

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