create_detail_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the intended outcome (magnified view) but does not detail side effects, error behavior, or requirements (e.g., existing drawing or view). The description is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It proceeds in natural order: noun phrase of purpose, then elaboration. Every sentence adds value without extraneous content.

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 output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, the description is sufficient for a straightforward creation tool. However, it could be improved with usage guidelines or behavioral notes. Still, it's largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names and types. The parameter descriptions in the schema already explain each field (e.g., center_x, radius). Baseline 3 is appropriate since no additional semantic context is provided.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a detail view of a specific area' and explains it generates magnified detail views for manufacturing and inspection. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_drawing_view or create_section_view.

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 for creating detail views of specific areas, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like create_section_view or add_drawing_view. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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