zoom

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

Annotations already declare the operation non-destructive, idempotent, and non-open-world, so the safety bar is low, yet the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not say that only the camera/view state changes and molecular data is untouched, nor how the buffer interacts with the framing, which is the main behavioral detail an agent would want.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is what leaves the sibling differentiation and parameter nuance unaddressed.

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 is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two params are fully documented in the schema. However, with a crowded camera-control sibling set, the definition lacks the routing information needed to call the right tool confidently.

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%: both parameters are documented (selection = what to fill the view with, buffer = padding in Angstrom with default 5). The description names the selection target but says nothing about buffer or units, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Zooms the view") plus the target ("on a selection"), so an agent knows it adjusts the camera framing around a selection. It does not distinguish itself from the many related camera siblings such as center, orient, turn, move, or full_screen, so the agent must guess which framing tool to pick.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given and no alternative is named, even though the sibling list contains several near-neighbors (center, orient, viewport, full_screen) whose choice depends entirely on whether you want to center, orient, or zoom-to-fit. Usage is only implied by the word "zoom".

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