gsa_rescale_view_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation of view state but does not say whether the change is persistent, whether a view must be open/current, or what side effects rescaling extents has on the view.

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. It is terse, but every word is doing work rather than padding.

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, but the definition is still missing parameter meaning, mutation semantics without annotations, and any cue separating it from gsa_rescale_view_to_fit.

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% for the single required view_id parameter, and the description only obliquely says 'for view'. It adds no format, validity, or lookup guidance (e.g. whether the id must reference an existing view) beyond the parameter name.

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 (Rescale) and resource (contour/diagram data extents for a view), so the agent knows what is being changed. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling gsa_rescale_view_to_fit, leaving the agent to infer the difference between 'data extents' and 'to fit'.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related gsa_rescale_view_to_fit alternative. The agent has no routing information to decide between the two rescale tools.

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