Viewport info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any other behavioral traits. While the name 'viewport_info' hints at information retrieval, the description itself gives no explicit safety or side-effect information.

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 concise phrase that directly states the core data content without padding or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaningful information.

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 simple info tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description partially explains the return content (viewport rect and screenblocks size). However, it fails to mention how the 'instance' parameter influences the result, and it does not describe the output format or any error conditions, leaving notable gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'instance' parameter at all. There is no explanation of what 'instance' refers to (e.g., game instance, window ID) or how it affects the result, leaving the agent without meaningful semantic guidance beyond the bare schema definition.

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 identifies the resource (3D view window rect and screenblocks size) and the specific data fields (x/y/width/height), establishing what info is provided. However, it lacks a verb like 'gets' or 'returns', and it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as renderer_info or hud_info.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context, and no exclusions. It simply states the data contents without indicating scenarios or prerequisites.

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