frame_selected_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the core action (adjusting camera position and orientation) but does not disclose side effects, error behavior (e.g., missing objects or camera), or whether the camera's transform is permanently modified. It is adequate for a simple operation but lacks depth.

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, clean sentence that is front-loaded with the essential action and scope. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or redundant qualifiers.

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?

For a camera framing tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core function but omits usage context such as prerequisites (objects must exist, camera must exist) and does not distinguish when to prefer this over frame_selected. Since an output schema exists, return value explanation is not required, but the description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly refers to 'camera' and 'listed objects' without explaining the expected format or value types of camera_name and object_names. The description does not clarify that camera_name should be an existing camera identifier or that object_names is a list of valid object names, so it adds minimal value over 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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Position and orient') with a clear resource ('a camera') and a precise scope ('frame the listed objects'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like frame_all and frame_selected, which do not accept an explicit object list.

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 the usage (frame specifically listed objects rather than all or the current selection) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like frame_selected. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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