look_at

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses the core rotation behavior and the -Z axis alignment, and also clarifies how the target can be specified. It does not cover edge cases like what happens if both targets are null or how the object origin affects the rotation, but the primary behavior is transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides necessary context and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 relatively simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: the action, the target options, and the intended use case. It could mention the behavior when neither target is provided or which target takes precedence, but for typical usage it is complete enough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well described. The description adds useful meaning by framing the two target parameters as mutually exclusive alternatives ('Give either'), which is helpful, but it does not substantially go beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 ('Rotate an object so its -Z axis points at a target') and identifies the intended use case for cameras and lights. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like rotate_object or set_camera_transform, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: for aiming cameras and lights that look down -Z. It explains the two valid target modes ('either `target` coordinates or `target_object`'), but does not explicitly describe when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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