eda_dmt_editor_control_zoom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return value shape and the false condition (canvas doesn't support zoom or tabId doesn't exist). It also adds a remark about coordinate unit spans for different canvas types. However, it doesn't describe side effects (e.g., does it change the current view? is it reversible?) or whether it requires an active document. The return type and false condition are useful behavioral disclosures.

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 compact: a signature line, a one-line Chinese summary, a remarks line, and a returns line. It front-loads the signature and purpose. The remarks about coordinate units are relevant but somewhat tangential to the zoom operation itself. Overall, every line earns its place, though the structure is a bit dense with mixed languages.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description does a decent job: it provides the return type, the false condition, and a unit remark. However, it lacks information about the meaning of the percent value, valid ranges, whether the zoom is relative or absolute, and how it differs from the many sibling zoom tools. For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100% per context signals, but the schema itself is generic: it only describes 'args' as a JSON parameter array and 'windowId' as a target window ID. The description adds the function signature 'zoom(percent: number, tabId?: string)' which clarifies the first parameter is a percentage and the second is an optional tab ID. This adds meaning beyond the generic schema, but it doesn't explain what 'percent' means (e.g., 100 = actual size? 200 = 2x?) or the valid range. The description partially compensates for the generic 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 states a specific verb ('zoom') and resource ('dmt_EditorControl'), and includes the function signature with return type. It clearly indicates this sets a zoom percentage. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the many sibling zoom tools (zoom_to, zoom_to_region, zoom_to_all_primitives, etc.), so it's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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: call this to set a zoom percentage on the editor control. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the other zoom-related siblings (zoom_to, zoom_to_region, zoom_to_selected_primitives, etc.). The 'remarks' about coordinate units provide some context but not usage guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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