Set GeoGebra View

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a mutation ('Set') but doesn't disclose side effects, persistence, session requirements, or reversibility. No additional behavioral context is provided.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, given the tool's complexity, more structure could be added without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, complex anyOf schemas, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description is insufficient to cover all these aspects. It doesn't explain the parameter shapes, the need for sessionId, or any return/error behavior. This is clearly inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names a few params (coordinate system, grid, axes, perspective) but gives no details on structure, types, or required fields. The complex array schemas for coordSystem and axesVisible are unexplained, leaving the agent without enough information to construct valid input.

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 sets view options (coordinate system, grid, axes, perspective) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ggb_set_state by focusing on 'view', but doesn't explicitly name 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't provide context such as 'for adjusting display settings' or exclusions like 'not for changing object properties'. The tool name and description imply usage but don't explain prerequisites or compare to related tools.

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