view_zoom_extents

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, which flags mutation but not its scope; the description closes that gap by stating the change is confined to the display camera and drawing geometry is untouched. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of mentioning view-state persistence, whether the zoom survives a save/reload, or any refresh cost.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with no padding beyond the purpose claim. The non-modification point is stated twice (main clause and again as "Side-effects: ... drawing geometry unmodified"), a small redundancy that costs it a point but aids skimming.

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 view tool with an output schema present, the description covers what it does, what it changes, what it does not change, and which sibling to use instead. Return values need not be described given the output schema.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty closed object, so there is no parameter meaning to explain. Baseline 4 applies: nothing missing, nothing to add.

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?

Opening clause states a specific verb and resource: "Zoom the live AutoCAD view to drawing extents." It also distinguishes the tool from the nearest sibling by naming view_zoom_window in the disambiguation line, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

"Frames full drawing; use view_zoom_window to zoom to a specific area" gives an explicit when-to-use plus a named alternative and the condition that selects it. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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