cam_look_through

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description does not explain why the operation is marked destructive, nor does it disclose side effects such as whether the viewport change is persistent, reversible, or affects only the active view. It adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations themselves.

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 bilingual but concise, containing only two short sentences that front-load the action. There is no unnecessary elaboration or repetition, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It defines the action and the parameter, and the scope (active viewport) is explicit. Minor details like error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., an existing camera) are not mentioned but are not critical for a basic viewport operation.

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?

The schema provides a full description for the single 'camera' parameter ('相机名称。 | Camera name.'), covering 100% of parameter semantics. The tool description only references 'this camera' without adding further meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action: 'Make the active viewport look through this camera.' It specifies a verb, resource (active viewport), and effect (look through the camera). It is distinguishable from siblings like cam_align_to_view or cam_set_viewport by focusing on the viewport perspective rather than camera alignment or general viewport settings.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as cam_set_viewport and cam_align_to_view exist but are not mentioned, nor are any conditions for exclusion. The purpose is clear but the selection context is left to the agent.

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