sch_auto_resize_sheet

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the tool reads bounding boxes, picks the smallest A4-A1 size with a configured margin, only grows (not shrinks), and reports when no change is needed. It doesn't discuss side effects or configuration details, but the core behavior is well explained.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the main action, followed by concise operational details and return values. Three short paragraphs with no redundant phrasing; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with an output schema, the description fully explains behavior, conditions, algorithm, and return. It's complete and self-contained, even without needing an output schema explanation.

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 per rubric the baseline is 4. The description mentions a 'configured margin' but doesn't explain where it's set, which is a minor gap. However, no parameter documentation 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?

Description clearly states a specific verb+resource: automatically grow the sheet to fit all placed symbols. It explains the algorithm (bounding box, standard paper size selection) and distinguishes it from manual sheet resizing (sch_set_sheet_size) and other schematic tools.

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 implies usage after placing symbols and describes the decision logic (no change if fits). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the auto-fit behavior is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to select this tool over the manual sch_set_sheet_size.

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