set_view

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

The description explicitly states that the tool only moves the camera and does not modify the drawing, which is important behavioral context. It also explains the rotation direction (positive = counter-clockwise) and fit behavior. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the main action first, then explains parameters and side effects. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 description covers the tool's behavior, parameters, and side effects. It doesn't mention return values, but an output schema exists, so that's not required. It could be more explicit about when to use this tool vs position_view, but overall it's complete for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of rotation (extra turn in degrees, positive = counter-clockwise) and fit (zooms to show whole drawing), and lists the valid orientation values. It doesn't explicitly describe the orientation parameter's default, but the schema already provides that.

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 purpose: turning the FreeCAD 3D view to a specified orientation (top, front, rear, left, right, bottom, isometric), with optional rotation and fit. It uses a specific verb ('Turn') and resource ('FreeCAD 3D view'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like position_view by focusing on camera orientation rather than placement.

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 explains the effect of each parameter (rotation, fit) and clarifies that it only moves the camera, not the drawing. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like position_view, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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