daz_look_at_character

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral details. It discloses that the tool automatically finds the target's head position and rotates the source using 'cascading body rotations' with five modes. It also lists the returned fields, including rotatedBones. However, it does not mention whether the rotation is animated or permanent, prerequisites like character naming, or error states if labels are missing.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by parameter explanations, return values, and two clear examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It follows a logical flow that is easy for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (three parameters, cascading rotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, parameters, returns, and examples. It is nearly complete but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., characters must be in scene, labels must be unique) and potential errors. These are minor gaps given the output schema and examples.

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?

The input schema provides only names and types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully: it explains source_label and target_label as display labels, and mode with five explicit options and their defaults. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema, enabling correct parameter selection.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Make one character look at another character's face'), clearly indicating the action and the resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'daz_look_at_point' by specifying 'character's face' rather than a point. This unambiguous purpose allows an AI agent to select the correct tool for character-to-character gaze.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: to make one character look at another's face. The examples show proper usage with different modes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for looking at arbitrary 3D points) or compare with 'daz_look_at_point'. The sibling tool name gives a strong hint, but the description misses explicit guidelines.

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