frame_selected

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives no information about what the tool does, side effects, requirements, or return behavior. For a tool that frames selected objects in the viewport, there is no mention of selection state or viewport changes. This is completely opaque.

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 extremely short but contains no substantive content. It repeats the tool name with a product prefix, which does not earn its place. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness; a single unhelpful sentence is not appropriately structured.

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 no parameters and an output schema, but the description gives no hint about the operation's effect or its return value. Framing selected objects in a viewport involves context like current selection and camera, none of which is mentioned. An agent cannot safely infer what happens when this tool is called, making the description severely incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to convey. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuously), and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 'Blender Studio Pro MCP: frame_selected' merely restates the tool name with a product prefix, providing no verb or resource. It does not explain what the tool does or how it differs from sibling tools like frame_selected_objects or frame_all. This is a tautology, only marginally better than a missing description.

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 this tool versus alternatives. No context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions is given. The description contains zero usage information, leaving the agent to infer intent purely from the tool name.

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