set_screen_stretch

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the non-destructive display-only behavior, which clarifies that pixel data is not altered. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail side effects like resetting or linked-channel behavior.

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?

One concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. The parenthetical clarifiers earn their place and add meaningful distinction without padding.

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?

The core purpose is clear and a minimal call with just 'id' would likely work, but the optional parameters are semantically opaque and there is no output schema. Given zero schema coverageainer, the description leaves too much unexplained for full tool usage.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'id', 'mode', or 'linked' parameters. An agent cannot infer what 'mode' values like 'hard' or 'none' mean, nor what 'linked' controls, so the description fails to compensate for the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Apply an AutoSTF to the on-screen display of a view.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'stretch' tool by stressing 'on-screen display' and 'non-destructive,' so an agent can tell this is a display-only operation, not a pixel-level stretch.

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 phrase 'for a human watching the PixInsight window' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus a destructive stretch. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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