frame_all

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose side effects itself, but it says nothing about whether the viewport camera is modified, whether the scene is changed, or what the operation's consequences are. It merely restates the action without behavioral 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 text is very short and front-loaded, with no filler words; the Args section is a conventional, structured addition. Its brevity is appropriate for the simple operation, though it leaves other dimensions under-specified.

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 1-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives only the action and a minimal parameter hint. It omits practical details such as what happens when pane_name is omitted, which pane is affected, and whether any return value is produced.

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's 'Args: pane_name: Pane tab name.' is the only explanation of the parameter. It adds a label but does not clarify valid values, formatting, or what null/default means.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Frame') and resource ('all geometry in the viewport'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool frame_selection. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the scope ('all geometry') makes the contrast evident.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like frame_selection or set_viewport_camera. The only additional line documents the pane_name argument, with no context on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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