fit_viewport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does well by explaining the step-by-step behavior: measures the drawing, picks the largest standard scale, and resizes the viewport to the drawing. It also discloses the return value (the scale and why). However, it does not mention side effects on existing viewport properties or the role of the 'locked' and 'margin' parameters, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no filler. Every clause adds meaningful detail: measurement, scale selection, viewport resizing, and return value explanation.

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 output schema covers return values, so that part needs no description. However, the tool is moderately complex with 8 parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations. The core algorithm is described, but parameter semantics and when to use vs. alternatives are missing, leaving the description only partially complete for an AI agent.

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 does not compensate by explaining any parameters. While the concept of a 'region' hints at x1/y1/x2/y2 and 'margin' might relate to the standard scale fit, the roles of 'sheet', 'layer', 'locked', and 'margin' are not clarified. For an 8-parameter tool, this is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fit') and clearly states the resource ('model into a region of a sheet'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_viewport or zoom_window by describing the unique behavior of sizing the viewport to the drawing rather than to the region, with a specific algorithm (measure, pick standard scale, resize).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to fit a model into a sheet region with a standard scale) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. It doesn't say 'use this instead of zoom_extents' or 'do not use with non-standard scales,' so guidance is only implicit.

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