recentre

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete state change: all axes returned to the camera's own defaults (centre, level, unzoomed). What it does not address is whether the camera's default is per-camera or session-defined, or whether any prior aim/mark state is lost. That leaves a meaningful behavioral gap for a mutating camera tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of the resulting states. No padding, no restatement of the tool name, every clause carries information.

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, zero-annotation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential effect and target state. The only omission is what the call returns or whether it can fail, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly needs to say nothing further about inputs.

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 action (reset) and enumerates the resulting state on three axes: centred, level, unzoomed. An agent can tell this is a global camera-reset rather than a per-axis move. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like zoom or aim, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or trigger condition, and no mention of alternatives such as zoom or nudge that also adjust the view. The reset semantics imply a recovery/intent, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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