jump_to_view3d_object_by_name

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description is not the sole source. It adds the behavioral constraint "memerlukan UI" (requires UI), which is useful context, but does not explain side effects or what exactly changes in the viewport.

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 concise sentence that directly states the purpose and a key prerequisite. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and a runtime requirement. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter detail, and the output schema is not visible in the input. It is minimally 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?

The schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage. The description only says "ke sebuah objek" (to an object), which vaguely links the 'name' parameter to an object but does not specify that it must match an existing object name or any format requirements. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action: "Frame viewport 3D ke sebuah objek" (frame viewport 3D to an object), which is a specific verb+resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the tool name and description together make the function evident.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The only additional note is "memerlukan UI" (requires UI), which is a prerequisite rather than usage context or exclusion.

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