fusion_fit_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It states the action (zoom/fit to visible geometry) which implies a non-destructive viewport state change, but doesn't explicitly disclose that it modifies view state without altering geometry, or mention any side effects. For a zero-parameter view tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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?

Two-clause single sentence, front-loaded with the key action (zoom/fit viewport), and the second clause adds practical context. Zero wasted words.

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 view manipulation tool with simple sibling relationships (naming fusion_screenshot), the description fully covers what's needed. It could mention that it changes view state only, but nothing else is needed.

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 there's nothing for the description to explain beyond what the schema shows (100% coverage by virtue of having no properties). Baseline 4 applies for zero-param tools; not much compensational need.

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 a specific verb-resource-target pattern: 'Zoom/fit the Fusion viewport to the visible geometry.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like render_orthographic_views (a different rendering operation) and fusion_screenshot (capture, not view adjustment). The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly directs when to call it: 'call before fusion_screenshot for a useful picture'. This names a sibling tool and gives concrete usage sequencing guidance, making it clear how this fits into the workflow.

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