get_viewport

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat that. It adds a small behavioral detail—the result is a single inline bounded image—but leaves the semantics of 'bounded' and the meaning of source/target selection unexplained. No contradiction with 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is concise and readable, though it could afford a second sentence to explain key parameters or use cases without becoming bloated.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot infer what 'target' means, how max_resolution behaves, or how to select scene_view versus game_view, and there is no guidance on how to interpret the returned image.

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% and the description names none of the four parameters (source, target, max_resolution, unity_instance). The enum for source and default values in the schema provide some hints, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning and fails to compensate for the zero coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('one bounded inline viewport image') and states the purpose ('for visual verification'). It is distinguishable from generic sibling names like get_result or inspect_unity, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 phrase 'for visual verification' implies this tool is for obtaining an image to verify a scene or game view, but the description does not state when to use it instead of alternatives like inspect_unity or get_result, nor are exclusions given. Usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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