view

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the safety profile is already declared. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the specific operations and noting that get_screenshot captures the current view as a PNG image. It does not contradict the annotation, and the mention of coordinate parameters for zoom_window provides some operational transparency beyond the raw 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by an operation list. It front-loads the main purpose and uses a bullet format for operations, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, 1 required, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main operations and their associated parameters. It does not detail edge cases like invalid operations or coordinate requirements, but the essentials are present. The output schema presumably handles return-value documentation, so the description is mostly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to compensate. The description does add meaning by linking x1, y1, x2, y2 to the zoom_window operation, and it names the operations. However, it does not explain the coordinate system, units, or whether all coordinates are required for zoom_window, so parameter semantics remain partially under-specified.

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 identifies the tool as controlling the viewport and capturing screenshots, with specific operations listed: zoom_extents, zoom_window, and get_screenshot. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like layer or entity, which handle different aspects.

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 by listing operations and their parameters (e.g., 'zoom_window — Zoom to window: x1, y1, x2, y2'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. For a viewport-focused tool, the usage context is fairly clear from the operation list, but without explicit alternative guidance it remains at the 'implied usage' level.

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