zoom_to_fit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the zoom action but does not explicitly state that this is a non-destructive view change or that it does not modify the sprite data. This is a minor gap for a simple view tool, but more explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, target, and purpose efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, clear purpose), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and why it is useful, without needing additional details about return values or complex side effects.

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, and the schema confirms this. Per baseline, a 0-parameter tool should score 4 because there are no parameter semantics to convey, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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 precisely states the action ('Zoom') and the target ('Aseprite canvas'), with a clear outcome ('fit the window') and context ('for better screenshot visibility'). It is distinct from sibling tools like take_screenshot or get_canvas_preview, as it focuses on view manipulation.

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 provides a clear use case ('for better screenshot visibility'), implying when to use it. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for this simple view command.

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