Orient

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a change to the camera/view state but does not say whether the change is reversible, whether it also re-zooms or re-centers on the selection, or what happens when the selection is empty or the default 'all' is used. For a state-mutating view operation with zero annotation coverage, these are meaningful gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word carries information about the action, the target, and the reference frame. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 no explanation, and a one-parameter view tool is simple enough that the description covers the core operation. It is slightly under-specified about the principal-axes convention and about side effects on zoom/target, which an agent might need before calling it.

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% and there is a single documented default ('all'), so the schema already explains the parameter. The description only echoes 'a selection' without clarifying what selection syntax is accepted or what 'all' means in practice, so it adds no meaning beyond 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 ('orient') and object ('the camera') plus the frame used ('principal axes of a selection'), so the agent knows exactly what the operation does. It does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as 'align' or 'turn', leaving the agent to infer which one reorients the camera on an existing selection versus doing something else.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives ('align', 'turn', 'zoom'). The agent must guess that this is the tool for snapping the view to a selection's geometry rather than for rotating the camera manually.

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