viewport_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful detail about what information is surfaced and consistently reads as a pure query. No side effects are claimed or implied, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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, listing the exact result fields with no filler. The bilingual duplication is purposeful and does not add meaningful length.

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 zero-parameter read-only query, the description is essentially complete: it states what is returned and aligns with the safe annotations. It could additionally specify the exact output structure or possible view type values, but that is not necessary for correct selection and invocation.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter-specific behavior to document, and the schema confirms no inputs are expected.

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 read operation and enumerates the exact data returned: each viewport's resolution, active viewport index, view type, and active camera name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that capture, set, or modify viewports.

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 return-oriented language makes it clear this is the tool for inspecting viewport state rather than changing or capturing viewports. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can route correctly.

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