view

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that get_screenshot is diagnostic-only, and the set_visual_style data includes expected_revision and lease_token, hinting at concurrency controls. It does not detail side effects of set_visual_style, but overall it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a scannable bullet list of operations. Each operation line is concise and informative, with no filler or redundant 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?

The tool features six distinct operations and a free-form data parameter; the description covers each operation's behavior and points to an alternative for screenshots. It omits return value and error details, but there is no output schema and the descriptions are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the correct operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping zoom_window to x1,y1,x2,y2 and outlining the data object for set_visual_style. It does not explain the coordinate units or all possible data fields, but it provides enough for an agent to understand the primary parameter usage.

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 opens with a specific statement that the tool handles viewport control and diagnostic window capture, then enumerates distinct operations (zoom_extents, fit_drawing, zoom_window, set_visual_style, show_window, get_screenshot). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling domain tools like drawing or entity.

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?

It gives clear context for each operation and explicitly recommends drawing.render_preview over get_screenshot for normal use. However, it does not explain when to prefer view over drawing for other viewport tasks, so there is a minor gap in alternative guidance.

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