daz_look_at_point

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains cascading rotations and mode options, but it does not mention whether the look is additive or replaces existing poses, if it is animated, or if it requires a character to be selected. More detail on side effects would improve transparency.

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 well-structured: brief intro, args table, return values, and two examples. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (purpose, modes, example) is front-loaded. No redundant content.

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 all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how it works (cascading rotations), all parameters with options, expected return values, and usage examples. Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no nested objects), this is complete. An output schema exists, and the description complements it.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It provides thorough parameter explanations: labels and units (cm) for coordinates, and a detailed list of mode options with default. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Make character look at a world-space point with configurable body involvement.' It specifies the verb ('look at'), resource ('world-space point'), and scope ('configurable body involvement'). It distinguishes from sibling 'daz_look_at_character' by focusing on a point, not another character.

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 provides examples but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'daz_look_at_character' or 'daz_interactive_pose'. Usage is implied through examples, but no when-not or alternative comparisons are given.

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