set_viewer_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool's result reports is_scene_graph_view, which is the key behavioral outcome an agent needs to know. It also explains the side effect of current_node: 'selects the stage a Solaris viewport shows.' It doesn't mention whether this mutates scene state or requires specific permissions, but the description is honest about what the tool does and what it returns. A 4 is appropriate because it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple verb definition.

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 front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, the second clarifies the distinction from a sibling, the third explains the prerequisite relationship, and the fourth states the key return value. The Args section is clean and maps directly to the schema. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how it differs from set_current_network, when to call it, and what the result reports. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the full return structure beyond is_scene_graph_view, and pane_name is under-explained. But given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly complete.

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 does: each parameter is explained with a concrete example ('network_path: Network for the viewer to display, e.g. "/stage"'), and current_node's effect is described ('selects the stage a Solaris viewport shows'). pane_name is only given a terse 'Pane tab name,' which is thin but acceptable. The description adds meaning beyond the raw schema titles, though pane_name could use more detail.

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's purpose: 'Point the Scene Viewer at a network, and optionally a node inside it.' It uses a specific verb ('point') and resource ('Scene Viewer'), and distinguishes itself from set_current_network by explicitly contrasting viewer vs editor. This makes it easy for an agent to understand what it does and how it differs from a sibling.

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 explicit usage guidance: it explains that set_current_network moves the editor while this moves the viewer, and that this is the prerequisite for previewing a USD stage or setting a Hydra delegate. It even gives a concrete example: 'call this with "/stage" before set_viewport_renderer or before binding a USD camera prim.' This is strong when-to-use guidance with a clear alternative named.

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