rhino_set_view

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover the main behavioral aspects. The description adds no extra context beyond the literal action (e.g., effects on active viewport or camera state). It does not contradict the annotations, but it provides minimal added value.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and lists example values. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists so return values are already covered. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though it omits details about invalid view names or whether it changes the active viewport. Given the simplicity, the overall coverage is acceptable.

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 description does not elaborate on the view_name parameter. The schema itself includes a description listing allowed values, but the tool description adds nothing beyond that. Since schema description coverage is reported as 0% (meaning the description ignores the parameter), the description fails to compensate for the semantic gap.

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?

Description clearly states the action (switch the viewport) and the target (a named view), with a list of common view names. It is specific enough to understand the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling camera tools like rhino_zoom_extents or rhino_capture_view.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning when to prefer it over rhino_zoom_extents, rhino_list_views, or other camera-related tools. There are no exclusions or contextual hints.

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