zoomToExtent

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

The annotations already indicate idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the description does not contradict these. However, the description adds little beyond stating the animation action; it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or behavior on invalid input. Given annotations cover the main safety aspects, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. It efficiently states the action and target, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 that the schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety, the description is adequately complete for a tool of this simplicity. It clearly states the action and return type, though it omits usage guidance, which is a minor gap. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (bbox, duration, sessionId) with types, ranges, and defaults. The description adds no extra clarity about parameters, and since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is justified.

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 action ('Animate the camera') and the target ('a west/south/east/north bounding box'), making it obvious what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying animation, which is a key differentiator from setView or flyTo that might be immediate.

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 does not provide any context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like flyTo or setView. It lacks guidance on conditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred, which is important given the presence of similar camera-control tools in the sibling list.

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