ue_vision

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does hint that frame mutates editor camera state while capture produces an image, but it never states how the image is returned (inline, file path, handle), whether framing requires the actor to be selected/visible, or what permissions/mode (PIE vs editor) are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the two modes are presented compactly. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented payload, but there is no wasted text.

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?

With a nested free-form params object at 0% coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain how to shape the action/params payload and what capture returns. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot reliably invoke this tool from the definition alone.

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% and the only structured info is a required untyped 'action' string plus an opaque nested 'params' object. The description implies the action values ('capture', 'frame') and that frame needs an actor reference, but it names no parameter keys or nested shape, leaving the payload essentially undocumented.

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?

Names the resource (the editor viewport) and enumerates the two concrete actions: capture the active viewport as an image and frame the camera onto an actor. The 'viewport eyes' metaphor is decorative but the parentheticals make the capability unambiguous and distinct from the world/blueprint/material siblings.

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?

Lists what the two modes do but gives no condition for choosing between them and no exclusions relative to siblings (e.g., when to use ue_world for actor inspection instead of framing on an actor here). An agent must guess which action applies to its situation.

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