Stage View Focus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the animated fly-to behavior, the constant viewing direction, the floor constraint, desktop-only scope, the failure mode, the reply payload, and the emitted 'focus' event. It never states that the operation is non-destructive/no-permission-needed, which a camera mutation would benefit from.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints, errors and return shape in compact parenthetical form. The telegraphic 'Page replies {...}' block is dense but each clause adds distinct information; minor redundancy with the output schema.

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?

Behaviorally rich for a camera tool with no annotations, and the output schema covers the reply shape. The clear gap is parameter documentation — an agent cannot tell what 'scene' expects or how 'seconds' affects the flight without guessing.

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% for 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implies 'object' via prose; 'scene' and 'seconds' (the fly duration, default 1) are never explained, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Frame an object on the desktop: fly to fit its bounds') with concrete mechanics — preserves viewing direction, avoids going below the floor. That implicitly separates it from camera-move siblings like stage_camera_goto or stage_view_walk, but no sibling is named outright.

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?

'Desktop only. Errors: in VR' gives an explicit exclusion condition, which is stronger than most sibling definitions. It stops short of naming a desktop alternative or explaining what to do instead when in VR.

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