focus_camera

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

The description clarifies that the operation affects the current editor camera rather than scene entities or saved transforms, which adds meaning beyond the annotations. It also implicitly signals that this changes viewport framing in preparation for capture_viewport, while idempotentHint and destructiveHint are consistent.

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 two sentences and every sentence earns its place: it states the primary behavior, the intended context, and the key exclusions with alternatives. The main use is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter camera-framing tool, the combination of a clear behavioral statement, explicit usage guidance, and alternative routing is complete. The absence of an output schema is not a problem because this operation primarily changes editor state rather than returning structured data.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not value-adding.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Aim the current editor camera to look at a world-space point from a given distance.' It clearly distinguishes itself from related tools by naming focus_viewport and modify_entities as the alternatives for different use cases.

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 gives both a positive use case ('framing an exact location before capture_viewport') and explicit not-to-use cases with direct alternatives ('use focus_viewport' for entities, 'use modify_entities' for in-scene camera entities). This makes selection unambiguous.

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