frame_bbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say this moves the viewport camera, what happens when both min_vec/max_vec and node_path are supplied (which wins?), whether the viewer param is optional, or what occurs when all optional params are omitted — significant gaps for an action tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Little waste, though the 'Does not home the grid' clause is cryptic without context and could be traded for more useful information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with four undocumented parameters, zero annotations, and no usage routing, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke this confidently. Missing details include viewer selection and bbox-vs-node precedence.

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 for all four parameters. It loosely maps 'world-space bbox' to min_vec/max_vec and "node's geometry" to node_path, but gives no format, units, or precedence rules, and the 'viewer' parameter is never mentioned at all.

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 ('Frame') and the two resource variants it accepts (a world-space bbox or a node's geometry), which sets it apart from frame_selection and frame_all. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so the agent must infer the distinction from the input types alone.

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 only guidance is the negative 'Does not home the grid,' which clarifies one non-behavior but offers no positive when-to-use instruction. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over frame_selection, frame_all, or frame_usd_prim.

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