gsa_rescale_view_to_fit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a view modification operation, but does not disclose whether it changes saved state, requires permissions, is reversible, or affects anything beyond the view extents.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, functioning as a sentence fragment rather than a complete tool definition.

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?

Given zero annotation coverage, zero schema description coverage, and one required parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral implications an agent needs to invoke the tool confidently.

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 description never mentions view_id. The property name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about which view, valid ranges, or how the parameter interacts with the scaling operation.

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: 'Scale view extents to fit.' It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as gsa_rescale_view_data or gsa_update_views, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'to fit' implies a use case, but the description provides no when-not-to-use conditions or sibling routing.

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