chart_zoom

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, is non-idempotent and open-world. The description adds genuinely new context by saying it verifies actual range movement or requested bar endpoints after zooming, hinting at a post-condition check. However it omits what happens on verification failure, how tolerance is applied, and whether bars and direction are mutually exclusive.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. It is dense to the point of jargon ('native step', 'bounded count of loaded bars'), which costs a little clarity but keeps it tight.

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?

A 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions needs more from the description. Mode exclusivity, failure behavior, and the verification result are all unaddressed, leaving material gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage is only 29% (target_id and expected_layout_id only). The description obliquely gestures at direction ('one native step in/out'), bars ('bounded count of loaded bars') and tolerance/right_index ('verify ... endpoints'), but does not explain right_index, tolerance_bars, timeout_ms, or whether bars and direction are alternative modes. With low coverage the description should compensate more than it does.

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 (zoom) and resource (chart view) and distinguishes itself from chart_get_zoom/chart_set_visible_range by naming two distinct modes: a single native step and a bounded bar count. It's clear what the tool does, though the mapping of mode to parameter is left implicit.

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 guidance on when to use this versus chart_set_visible_range, chart_scroll_to_date, or chart_get_zoom, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'zoom'.

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