Zoom

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the exact return shape ({mode, window:{...,zoom}}) and the semantics of margin as extra space around 2D zooms. It does not mention permissions or view-state side effects, but the bar is lower given 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?

Two tight sentences plus a tip, all front-loaded with the tool's core behavior before secondary notes. Dense but not padded; the tip earns its place by showing a working call, though the mode enumeration slightly duplicates the schema enum.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in by describing the return object, and it covers units and the margin modifier. For a 7-param tool with optional-only arguments, this is complete enough for correct invocation. Only the lack of any note on where the change takes effect (view vs document) is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters including the mode enum, factor limits, and box coordinates. The description restates mode meanings but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Zooms) and resource (the active window), then enumerates every mode (fit, box, elements, selection, in/out, previous, redraw) with a plain-language gloss. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like capture_view or go_to_view without opening any schema.

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 explains what each mode is for and ends with a concrete workflow tip pairing it with capture_view to inspect elements. It gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer zoom over other navigation tools like open_view or set_3d_view.

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