set_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'Orient the viewport' and 'fit to view' but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires an open document, or what the return value is. It implies a camera change but lacks safety or side-effect details.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words or redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks a list of valid directions (a crucial constraint) and does not mention return values or preconditions (e.g., open document). The context signals show no enums or richer schema to compensate, so the description is incomplete.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only provides defaults. The description adds meaning: 'named direction' implies valid direction names exist (though not enumerated) and 'fit to view' explains the fit parameter. However, it does not list possible direction values or clarify the fit default behavior, so it partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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?

Purpose is explicit: 'Orient the viewport to a named direction' clearly describes the action on a specific resource (viewport). It also mentions the optional 'fit to view' capability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like screenshot (captures an image) and other CAD modeling 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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you want to change camera without capturing a screenshot.' This clearly scopes the tool's context, though it does not name alternative tools or provide negative usage cases. Still, it is clear and helpful.

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