get_viewer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral context. It only says 'Get details', which is a simple read operation, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, has no side effects, or requires specific permissions. While a get operation is inherently safe, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides parameter-specific guidance. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 the tool has an output schema (though not displayed), return value details are covered externally. The parameter semantics are fully explained, and the tool is simple. A slight gap remains: no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_camera or other get-* tools, but the context is sufficient for the intended use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the host format ('console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)') and clarifying that viewer_id is required and obtainable from list_viewers. This adds substantial meaning beyond the plain string type in 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('details for a single Protect viewer'), and the identifier ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from list_viewers (which lists) and update_viewer (which modifies) without needing to reference them.

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 explains how to obtain viewer_id from list_viewers, providing a clear workflow. It lacks an explicit exclusion of alternatives (e.g., 'use list_viewers to list all' or 'use update_viewer to modify'), but the workflow is strongly implied and practical for a single-view lookup.

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