view.focus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Risk: read' and the VIEW_3D foreground requirement, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and labeled, but the first sentence adds little beyond the tool name, and the limited content is not used to explain the tool's actual behavior. It is concise but at the cost of substance.

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 tool with required parameters and close siblings, the description is incomplete: it omits the core operation, the meaning of the object argument, and any differentiation from view-related alternatives. The output schema and annotations cover safety but not functional semantics.

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 required 'object' parameter has no description in the schema and the tool description does not explain what it refers to. With only 60% schema coverage and no compensation in the description, the most important parameter remains semantically unclear.

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 essentially restates the tool's identity ('PartMe Blender Harness command view.focus') without defining what focusing does to the scene or viewport. It gives a risk label and requirements, but no verb-resource statement that would let an agent understand the operation.

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 only usage guidance is the precondition that a foreground window with a VIEW_3D area must exist. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus sibling tools like blender_view_present or blender_view_set, nor any when-not-to-use guidance.

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