auto_frame_camera

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

Without readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool positions the camera and uses a temp_override mechanism, which is useful behavioral context beyond the title. However, it does not explain whether the override is reversible, what happens to existing camera settings, or what errors or returns to expect.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main action stated first and the temp_override hint adding meaningful behavior without filler. It is appropriately structured for a short description, though its brevity leaves important parameter and side-effect details unaddressed.

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?

With no output schema, no safety annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It communicates the high-level goal but omits parameter semantics, side-effect details, and any distinction from related camera framing tools.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. The AABB concept loosely implies that target_objects are the objects being framed, but margin and camera_name are not explained. An agent cannot confidently map the description to the three parameters.

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 verb and resource: it calculates an AABB and positions the camera at an ideal angle before capture. This clearly conveys the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling camera tools such as camera_set_view or camera_track_to.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: the tool should be used before capture ('antes de captura'), which is directly relevant for rendering or framing workflows. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative camera tools, so exclusions and routing guidance are limited.

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