zoom_to_selection

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

The annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds that the operation is a view action on the arrange view, which is helpful context and implies no data mutation. However, it does not disclose behavior when no time selection exists, whether the view state is changed persistently, or any other nuances. Given the minimal annotation coverage, the description carries some burden but is still thin.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and target, and every word earns its place. The description is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, neither verbose nor incomplete.

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 simple view operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely adequate. However, it omits practical information such as the requirement that a time selection must exist for the action to be meaningful, and it does not mention the absence of return value (though that is likely implicit). It could also benefit from a note that this only affects the arrange view, not other views. Thus, it is minimum viable but has room for improvement.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meaning. The schema covers 100% of parameters (none). The description correctly implies that the operation uses the current time selection as implicit input, which adds a bit of context beyond the empty schema, aligning with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 clear action ('Zoom') on a specific resource ('arrange view') tied to a specific context ('time selection'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'zoom_to_project' by explicitly referencing the time selection, making the scope clear. Could be stronger by explicitly naming the alternative, but it is 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'zoom_to_project' exists, but the description does not contrast them or mention any prerequisites (e.g., a time selection must exist). The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is not ideal.

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