focus_viewport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one important side effect beyond pan/zoom: 'with optional selection'. However, it doesn't mention whether the viewport change is instant or animated, whether nodeIds must be currently rendered, or whether this operation mutates any persistent state. For a viewport-focused tool, the behavior is reasonably clear but not deeply transparent.

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, tightly worded sentence that starts with the core action and ends with the optional modifier. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description provides enough to invoke it: what it does and what parameters are involved. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (no output schema), nor does it clarify behavior with multiple nodeIds or whether the viewport change is persistent. Given the large sibling set and lack of usage guidance, the context is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%: nodeIds is described as 'Array of node IDs to focus and zoom into' and select as 'Whether to also select the nodes (default: true)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It doesn't clarify edge cases like multiple nodeIds or invalid IDs.

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 a specific action ('Pan and zoom the Figma canvas viewport') with a clear purpose ('to focus on specific nodes'). This distinguishes it from many siblings like get_selection or find_nodes, which involve querying rather than viewport manipulation. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, but the verb-resource pairing is 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 'to focus on specific nodes' implies the primary use case: when an agent needs to bring certain nodes into view. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool, nor does it reference alternative siblings or side effects like how it relates to selection tools. The usage is implied but not directly stated.

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