view_axes

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is computed analytically (no projection performed), provides an example output format, and explains its role in catching axis swaps. This is sufficient for understanding the tool's behavior as a non-destructive, analytical 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage instruction, example output, and parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the most important information. One minor point: it could be slightly more concise by omitting the full JSON example, but overall it's efficient.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, parameter meanings, and return format. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without 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?

Despite the input schema having 0% description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'viewport_origin: camera position, same arg as project_to_viewport', 'viewport_up: up vector. Defaults to (0,1,0)', 'look_at: target point. Defaults to origin.' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema and clarifies the expected array-of-numbers format.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Return the world→page axis mapping for a project_to_viewport call, computed analytically'. It identifies the specific verb (return), resource (axis mapping), and context (for project_to_viewport call), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like render_drawing 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 gives clear usage guidance: 'Use this BEFORE rendering a projected view to confirm which world axis ends up on which page axis and with what sign — catches bottom-view/side-view axis swaps before they show up in the render.' This specifies when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it explicitly.

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