viewport_focus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral effects. It states the action and return value but does not mention side effects, such as whether the camera view is permanently changed, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the actor does not exist. This leaves uncertainty about the tool's impact on the scene.

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 entire description is a clean two-part sentence: it states the purpose and the return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundant wording or filler.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the core behavior and return info. However, it lacks context about side effects, potential errors, and how it differs from sibling camera tools, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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% for both parameters. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only restates 'named actor' concept but does not clarify distance, default values, or units.

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 uses a specific verb 'Focus' with a clear resource ('viewport camera') and object ('named actor'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'viewport_fit' and 'viewport_look_at' by emphasizing the named actor target and the return of bounding box.

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 intended use is implied: focus the camera on a named actor. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings like 'viewport_look_at' or 'viewport_fit', nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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