look_at_prim

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is already carried structurally. The description adds useful behavior not in annotations: distance is auto-computed from object size when omitted, and it makes clear the prim itself is not transformed, only the camera.

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 core verb and resource, followed by two compact clarifying lines. The azimuth convention line partly duplicates the schema and could be trimmed, but nothing is bloated.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description needn't explain parameters or return values. It covers the non-obvious distance fallback and angle convention; only the lack of any note on persistence/undo of the camera change keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount (270=left, which the schema omits, and the auto-distance rule), but azimuth/elevation/distance semantics are largely already documented in the schema.

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 and resource: 'Point the viewport camera at a prim from a given angle.' An agent can understand the operation immediately, but the description never distinguishes it from the nearby sibling set_camera, which likely also manipulates the camera.

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?

Usage is only implied by the description of the framing behavior; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over set_camera or capture_viewport, nor any preconditions such as an open viewport or loaded scene.

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