viewport_fit

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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default behavior for empty actor_names ('fits all actors in the level'), but it does not state whether the operation changes the camera, modifies actors, or has side effects. This adds some context but lacks comprehensive transparency for a viewport operation.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial behavioral detail. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word earns its place. There is no redundancy or waste.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does and the default behavior. It lacks explicit details like whether it affects the camera or requires an open level, but given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema, this is largely complete. A 4 reflects that it could add a bit more context about the operation's effect.

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 100%: both padding and actor_names have descriptive schema entries, including the default padding multiplier and the empty-for-all meaning. The description adds only a minor clarification that 'omitted' also fits all actors, which the schema's optional property partially implies. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Fit actors into the viewport frame.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like viewport_focus or viewport_bounds. It also clarifies the default behavior when actor_names is empty, which adds purpose clarity.

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?

The description implies usage by stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or references to other viewport tools. The guidance is purely implied: an agent can infer it should be used when actors need to be framed in the viewport.

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