streamlabs_fit_scene_item_to_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the key behavior of preserving aspect ratio, which is important. But it lacks details about side effects, such as whether the position is also changed, or if the operation is destructive. The description does not contradict any annotations because none are present.

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 a single, focused sentence that begins with the action verb and includes the essential qualifier about aspect ratio. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has three required parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the core action but does not clarify parameter roles, return values, or edge cases like whether the item is scaled up or down. This is a mutating operation with significant gaps in contextual info, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the invocation.

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%, and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (sceneId, sceneItemId, sourceId). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, which are already visible in the schema. Since coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate, and it fails to do so.

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 states a specific action, 'Resize a scene item to fit within the canvas while preserving aspect ratio', which clearly identifies the resource (scene item) and the intent (fit without distortion). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'streamlabs_stretch_scene_item_to_screen' which implies a different scaling behavior.

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 context is implied by the description: use when you want to fit a scene item to the canvas without distorting it. However, it does not explicitly state when-not to use or mention alternatives, such as the stretching tool. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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