game_viewport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it only conveys that the tool mutates or creates a SubViewport node. It does not mention that 'get' is read-only, what happens on name conflicts, whether width/height are required for creation, or what the return value might be. This is a significant gap for a tool with both mutating and non-mutating modes.

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?

At eight words, the description is extremely efficient and front-loaded. However, the brevity crosses from conciseness into under-specification: it omits the get action, the three-mode action routing, and any usage context. Every word earns its place, but several needed words simply aren't there.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three distinct behaviors (create/configure/get), a one-clause description is far from complete. The agent must open the schema to learn even the action modes, and there is no guidance on parameter interdependencies or expected return values. Sibling context alone cannot compensate for this.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema, tying the action param to create/configure but not explaining which parameters apply to which action mode (e.g., name+parentPath for create, nodePath for configure/get). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (SubViewport node) with concrete verbs (create/configure), which clearly distinguishes it from most siblings like game_window or add_node. However, it omits the 'get' action that the input schema's action enum explicitly supports, making the stated purpose slightly incomplete.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_node, game_window, or game_get_node_info. The action parameter implicitly routes between create/configure/get, but the description provides no direction on which mode to select or what prerequisites apply (e.g., parent path needed for create, existing nodePath for configure/get).

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