navigate_3d_view

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

The description richly discloses behavioral details: presets use Y-up OpenGL, orbit angles are in degrees, pan/pivot use world XYZ, zoom factor below 1 moves closer, pick uses normalized canvas coordinates with top-left origin, and origin resets the pivot to 0,0,0. Since annotations provide no behavioral safety hints, this description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly, with no contradiction to annotations.

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 five short, dense sentences with no filler. Each sentence delivers non-obvious information: coordinate systems, units, zoom direction, pick behavior, and pivot reset. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently packs a large amount of actionable detail into a compact space.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—9 parameters, 8 action enum values, and rich coordinate-system nuances—the description covers nearly all invocation-relevant behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Missing pieces include the meaning of the 'detail' parameter and any explicit statement about scene prerequisites or how this differs from set_3d_camera. It is close to complete but not fully exhaustive.

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, and it does for most parameters: orbit angles map to yaw/pitch, world XYZ maps to vector, zoom factor maps to factor, normalized canvas XY maps to screen, and origin/pivot semantics are explained. The scene_id is self-evident, but the 'detail' parameter is left unexplained. Overall, it adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema despite one notable 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: navigating a 3D view programmatically, with a list of specific actions like fit, orbit, pan, zoom, pick, and pivot. It goes well beyond a tautology and gives concrete operation semantics. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as set_3d_camera or manage_3d_views, but the action-oriented language makes the core purpose unmistakable.

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?

'Navigate without UI' implies the tool is for programmatic navigation rather than interactive UI-driven navigation, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like set_3d_camera or manage_3d_views, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites such as an already-open scene. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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