scene_setup_turntable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool creates a camera orbiting the target but does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on existing cameras, reversibility, or whether it sets up keyframes). Some behavioral context is given with 'smooth rotation' but insufficient detail.

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 concise with a clear front-loaded purpose and a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic functionality and parameters. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., success message, camera object reference) and does not address edge cases like invalid target_name or default behavior for missing parameters.

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 Arg descriptions add meaning beyond the schema, e.g., 'Object to orbit around (empty = scene center)' for target_name, and defaults are mentioned. With 0% schema coverage, this adds significant value, though units for radius/height/focal_length could be specified.

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 tool creates a 360° turntable camera animation around a target object, specifying the purpose ('showcasing models and avatars') and distinguishing it from siblings like 'anim_orbit' which likely handles continuous orbit rather than setup.

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 suggests usage for showcasing, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It implies usage context but does not provide clear direction.

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