cascadeur_frame_objects

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, while the description frames the operation as purely for visual inspection, implying no destructive or persistent side effects. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits and directly conflicts with the annotation, so it earns the lowest score.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and purpose. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter viewport tool, with every word contributing meaning.

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 carrying destructiveHint=true and an undocumented parameter, this one-line description is not sufficient for safe invocation. It lacks side-effect disclosure, object name semantics, and usage alternatives, and it conflicts with the annotation, leaving critical context missing.

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 schema gives only a bare array of strings with 0% description coverage. The description adds the key semantic that these strings correspond to 'body or finger controls', narrowing the parameter domain and differentiating them from generic scene objects. Still, it does not specify naming conventions, path syntax, or whether controls must already exist, so the compensation is partial.

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 ('Frame') with a resource ('body or finger controls') and a clear purpose ('visual inspection'), making the operation understandable. It implies a viewport/camera task distinct from sibling tools like capture_viewport or set_view_mode, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus related tools such as select_objects, set_camera, or capture_viewport. The phrase 'for visual inspection' only weakly implies an inspection use case, without conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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