focus_viewport

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the camera is moved, without mentioning side effects, state changes, or whether it requires a specific editor mode. The example call with no arguments implies defaults are acceptable, but no details are given about what happens when location or distance are omitted.

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, front-loaded with the action, and structured with an Args block, a KB reference, and an example. It avoids redundancy, though the KB reference could be seen as extra noise if not needed; overall it is efficient and readable.

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 camera-focus tool, the description covers the main action and parameter meanings, but it omits details about default behavior when no arguments are passed (though defaults exist in schema), potential return values (output schema may exist but is not provided), and any side effects on the editor session. The KB reference offers deeper context but does not substitute for explicit usage notes.

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 description provides meaningful semantic context for both parameters: location is explained as 'world-space position to look at' and distance as 'How far back from the location to place the camera (cm)', including units. Since the schema offers no parameter descriptions (schema coverage 0%), this textual explanation is essential and fully compensates.

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 tool moves the Unreal Editor viewport camera to focus on a world location, naming the specific action and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the verb and target are unambiguous enough for an agent to select it for camera movement tasks.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like viewport_capture_screenshot or set_actor_transform. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., viewport must be open) or conditions where this tool is preferred. The KB reference hints at broader world-building context but provides no actionable usage direction.

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