serp_viewport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the zoom_extents effect and lists parameter options, but does not disclose whether the viewport change impacts the active view persistently or requires an open scene. This is adequate for a simple view control but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 information-dense, with each parameter listed along with its valid options in a single sentence. There is zero filler—every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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, the presence of an output schema, and full parameter documentation, the description is largely complete. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., active viewport) and side effects, but for a viewport adjustment tool this is likely sufficient. A slightly more complete description would note that changes affect the current view only.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter: view lists all valid orientations, display_mode lists valid visual styles, and zoom_extents explains its behavior. This is comprehensive for a 3-parameter tool and adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's function ('Adjust the viewport') and enumerates all view orientations and display modes, making its purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on viewport 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 implies usage (adjusting the viewport) but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not mention when to prefer this over other scene tools, though the intent is clear from the name and context.

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