view_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only view, but does not explicitly state side-effect absence, auth needs, or error behavior. The description adds moderate context beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and context. No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema, so the description should explain return format. It mentions 'zoomed view' and 'thumbnail' but doesn't specify output type (e.g., image data). Schema coverage is low (40%), and the description does not fully compensate, leaving some ambiguity.

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 40% (only doc_id and frame have descriptions). The description adds that the window is 16 or 32px and includes a thumbnail, but does not detail parameters like cx/cy meaning (e.g., center coordinates). It adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the tool provides a zoomed view of a 16 or 32 px window along with a whole-canvas thumbnail marking the window. It specifies the tool is intended for canvases 64px and larger, which distinguishes it from sibling viewing tools.

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 explicitly indicates the intended workflow for 64px+ canvases, giving context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative siblings for smaller canvases.

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