Zoom EasyEDA Pro board outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool operates on the 'active' editor and only reframes the viewport rather than changing data, which is useful context. It omits what happens if no PCB document is active and does not note that the viewport change is a UI side effect not reflected in the idempotentHint=false declaration.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target lead. It is efficient, though terse enough that it borders on under-specification for a tool that has a prerequisite and an undocumented parameter.

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 viewport action with annotations covering safety and no output schema needed, the core intent is conveyed. However, the missing prerequisite (active PCB document), the undocumented timeout parameter, and the lack of routing to sibling navigation tools leave real gaps.

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 single parameter timeoutMs has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no default, no units, no guidance on when to raise it. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Zooms') and an explicit target ('the board outline') in a specific context ('the active PCB editor'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from nearby viewport tools like easyeda_navigate_region or easyeda_navigate_component, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no precondition (an active PCB document must be open), and no mention of the alternative navigation tools that could achieve a similar result. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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