frame_camera

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a view-only camera change but never confirms it does not mutate the scene, does not say whether the molecule and selection arguments are mutually exclusive, and says nothing about failure behavior when the target is absent or the selection string is invalid.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and elaborated with the zoom case. Nothing is redundant, though the compactness contributes to the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent must guess at argument interplay, the enumerated viewpoints, and whether the operation alters scene state.

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 all three parameters rely on the description for meaning. It touches 'molecule', 'selection', and 'viewpoint' loosely, but omits the seven allowed viewpoint values and the 'front' default, and never clarifies that all three parameters are optional or how molecule and selection combine.

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 gives a specific verb ('point' / 'zoom in') and resource ('scene camera', 'molecule', 'selection'), so the agent knows this reorients the viewer rather than rendering or fetching data. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the camera-framing purpose is distinguishable from render_image and get_scene_info.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: frame a molecule, or frame a sub-region such as a binding site. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over render_image or get_scene_info, and no note on prerequisites (e.g. whether a structure must already be loaded).

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