read_viewport

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Read Viewport settings.' which implies read-only but does not describe return format, failure modes, or whether any project state changes. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations or output schema.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and avoids bloat, earning a high score.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what 'viewport settings' includes, what the return value looks like, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent with significant gaps.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. The schema already explains scene_path and node_name, and the description doesn't clarify their relationship or usage.

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 'Read Viewport settings.' clearly identifies the action (read) and the target (viewport settings), distinguishing it from sibling read_* tools that target other node types. However, it does not enumerate what specific settings are included, leaving some ambiguity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to prefer read_viewport over similar read_* tools, how to combine scene_path and node_name, or any exclusions/alternatives.

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