raw_zoom_in

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable transparency for a mutation-capable raw command. However, it stays vague about what dialog may open or what state may change, and the term 'Static' is ambiguous rather than fully clarifying.

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 compact and front-loaded: it names the action first, then the static no-argument nature, then the side-effect caveat. Every phrase adds information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema command, the description provides the essential facts: what the action does, that it takes no arguments, and that side effects are possible. The side-effect warning is somewhat generic, and it doesn't explain how 'horizontally' affects the Audacity view, but given the low complexity of the tool, the description is largely 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document beyond confirming the no-argument nature. The description explicitly says 'no-argument,' which matches the schema. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Zoom in horizontally.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like raw_zoom_out, raw_zoom_sel, and raw_zoom_toggle. It also identifies it as a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' pinning down both behavior and scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its zoom siblings or other navigation tools. The caveat to 'inspect the command name first' is cautionary, not usage direction. There is no mention of when a user/agent should prefer raw_zoom_in over raw_zoom_out or raw_zoom_sel.

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