frame_objects

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the primary action. It does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the camera transform is permanently modified, whether it affects other objects, or if it is reversible. This leaves behavioral details ambiguous.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary detail or repetition, making it easy 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 lack of parameter explanations and annotation coverage, the description is not fully complete. It does not specify return values, whether it operates on the active camera or the named camera, or any constraints (e.g., objects must be visible). This leaves gaps for an agent trying to invoke 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?

The input schema defines three parameters (camera, margin, objects) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain their meaning or expected format. The agent is left to guess what 'margin' represents, what kind of value 'objects' expects (list, string, object), and how these interact with the framing logic.

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 action: moving the camera backward along its current orientation to frame the specified objects and aim at them. It is distinct from sibling tools like point_camera_at and set_camera, which focus on positioning or aiming without framing logic.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like point_camera_at or set_camera. It does not mention typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer its use from the action alone.

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