Computer Zoom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that coordinates remain in FULL-screenshot pixel space rather than crop space, but it does not clarify return behavior, whether a prior screenshot is required, or other operational constraints.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the critical coordinate-space constraint. There is no wasted wording.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the key coordinate-space caveat but omits return behavior and any prerequisite about an existing screenshot. It is adequate but not complete.

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. It provides important shared semantics for all coordinates by specifying FULL-screenshot pixel space, but it does not define x/y as an origin or explain width/height beyond the implicit region.

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?

Names a specific action, re-capturing a region at higher magnification, and states its intended use for reading small text. It is clearer than a generic screenshot tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like computer_screenshot.

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 phrase 'for reading small text' implies when the tool is useful, but it does not state explicit when-not conditions or name alternatives such as using computer_screenshot first. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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