studio_focus_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., overwriting current camera position), permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. The agent cannot assess safety or consequences.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly terse. It could be expanded to cover parameters while maintaining conciseness, so the score reflects efficiency without sacrificing essential information.

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?

Given the complexity of camera manipulation (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how 'focus' works, what the default distance or fieldOfView affect, or how the direction interacts with the instance orientation. The agent lacks complete context to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining each parameter. It mentions 'named direction' which maps to `view` enum, but instancePath, distance, and fieldOfView are completely unexplained. The agent must guess their meaning.

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 verb (Focus), the resource (Studio viewport camera on an Instance), and the method (from a named direction). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like studio_set_camera which sets absolute camera position, not focusing on an instance.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like studio_set_camera or studio_get_camera. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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