unreal_frame

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: it validates every target before moving the view, preserves actor selection, preserves projection for presets, and clarifies that geometry is not edited. These are useful operational traits that an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, prerequisites, validation behavior, and next step. The key scoping point ('without editing geometry') is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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?

Covers the important context: prerequisites, validation behavior, viewport restrictions, selection preservation, and the recommended follow-up tool. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. The main shortfall is the lack of parameter-semantics explanation, which prevents a perfect completeness score.

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, but it never names or explains actor_paths, padding, or the view enum values. It obliquely refers to 'explicit actors' and 'presets', but padding's purpose, range, and effect on framing are left entirely to inference. The parameter names and enum carry some meaning, but the description adds very little concrete parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Frame explicit actors in the current level-editor viewport'. It immediately distinguishes itself from editing tools by adding 'without editing geometry' and from capture tools by ending with 'Follow with unreal_capture'. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from the listed sibling tools.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: requires project binding, a rendered/unlocked editor camera, and perspective viewport for presets. It also suggests the next step, unreal_capture. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops just short of a 5.

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