zoom_to_project

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'zoom' language indicates a non-destructive view manipulation without additional side effects. It adds the specific object of zooming (arrange view) and target (entire project), but doesn't disclose details such as whether scroll position or selection is preserved. Given the annotation already covers the destructive profile, the description is adequate.

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?

One compact sentence that states the action and target with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, and the main intent is immediately visible.

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 command with a clear non-destructive annotation, the description fully states the behavior and requires no further details for invocation. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it would benefit from a note contrasting with zoom_to_selection, but that is captured in usage guidance.

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 has no properties, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 the specific verb 'zoom' and identifies the 'arrange view' as its target, with a clear goal of showing the entire project. This naturally distinguishes it from siblings like zoom_to_selection, which focus on a selected range. It is precise and unambiguous.

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 states what occurs but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over zoom_to_selection or other view-control tools. The context of 'show the entire project' implicitly indicates usefulness for overview, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. This leaves the agent to infer the decision on its own.

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