reset

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'resets the view' but does not clarify what 'reset' means (e.g., revert to default camera, restore home view) or what exactly happens to an object's matrix (e.g., set to identity). It also does not disclose any side effects, reversibility, or errors. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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, compact sentence that directly states the action and optional scope. It contains no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool has only one optional parameter, no annotations, and an output schema that may explain return values. The description covers the core action but lacks details on exact behavior (e.g., what 'reset' means precisely) and does not position it relative to sibling view tools. For such a simple tool, this is minimally complete but not rich enough for a higher score.

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%, and the 'obj' parameter already has a clear description ('Object whose matrix to reset. Omit to reset only the camera.'). The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is sufficient, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Resets' and identifies both the primary resource ('the view') and an optional secondary target ('an object's matrix'). This clearly distinguishes it from other view-adjustment tools like 'center', 'orient', or 'zoom', which adjust rather than reset. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tools, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 implies usage for resetting the view or an object's matrix but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or conditions like 'use this when you need to revert to the default view', nor does it warn against using it when other view adjustments are intended. This is minimal guidance.

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