center

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only the word 'view,' which is a modest hint that this affects the camera, not atomic coordinates or scene objects. It does not say that zoom level and orientation are left untouched, which is exactly the distinction an agent needs.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though it is closer to a fragment than a fully structured definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there is only one optional parameter with full schema coverage. However, for a tool sitting among dozens of near-identical view commands, the definition omits the disambiguation that would make it complete in context.

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 100% ('What to centre the camera on'), with default 'all', so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's phrase 'on a selection' loosely echoes it but adds no accepted-value syntax or default-behavior detail beyond the 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Centers the view') plus a scope ('on a selection'), so an agent knows it manipulates the camera rather than the molecular model. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as orient, zoom, reset, and viewport, which all change the camera too.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use center versus orient (which reorients and zooms to fit), zoom (which scales), or reset. The agent is left to infer the boundary from the name alone, despite an extremely crowded camera-control sibling set.

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