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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds the behavioral trait of an instantaneous, non-animated camera movement. This is valuable context not present in structured annotations and does not contradict them.

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, compact sentence in Chinese that front-loads the action ('instantly switch') and states the key differentiator ('no animation'). Every word contributes value, with no wasted elements.

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 straightforward view-setting tool with a fully documented schema and supporting annotations, the description sufficiently covers the essential behavior and the no-animation trait. Absence of return-value details is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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 input schema already describes all six parameters, including defaults and constraints, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only reiterates that longitude/latitude are the specified target, adding no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides.

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 action: instantly switch to a specified longitude/latitude view, and explicitly adds 'no animation' (无动画), distinguishing it from siblings like flyTo that likely animate. The verb 'switch' plus the resource 'specified lon/lat view' is specific and unambiguous.

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 'no animation' provides clear context for when to use this tool (instant snap to a view) and implicitly indicates when not to use it (if animated transition is desired). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like flyTo, so it falls short of a fully explicit usage guide.

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