inspect_viewport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool inspects the viewport but doesn't describe what 'inspect' entails operationally (e.g., returns a screenshot, text description, or structured data), whether it's read-only or has side effects, latency characteristics, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple zero-parameter input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the inspection returns (e.g., image data, text description, structured metadata), which is critical for an inspection tool. The agent knows what to inspect but not what to expect as a result.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Since there are no parameters to document, this meets expectations for parameter semantics without needing compensation.

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 action ('inspect') and target ('Scenic viewport') with a specific purpose ('to see what's currently displayed'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect_scenic' or 'get_scenic_status' by focusing on visual content inspection rather than connection or status checking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential visual inspection alternatives.

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 like 'get_scenic_status' (which might provide status information) or other visual inspection methods. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requires connection first), typical use cases, or limitations. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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