zoom_to_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral beyond the affected view. It does not say whether this mutates project data (it does not), what happens when no time selection exists, or whether the zoom is undoable — all relevant for a viewport operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy. The scope ('arrange view') is stated before the trigger ('time selection'), which is the right ordering.

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, no-output-schema viewport tool the description covers the essentials of the call itself. The only meaningful gap is the unstated dependency on an existing time selection, which matters more here than for most tools.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. No parameter-level information is missing.

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?

States a specific verb (zoom) and the exact target scope (the arrange view, to the time selection). An agent immediately knows what the tool does, but the description never acknowledges the obvious sibling zoom_to_project, so disambiguation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over zoom_to_project, nor what precondition must hold (a time selection existing) for this to do anything useful. The agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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