eda_dmt_editor_control_zoom_to

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does so by stating the return type (region data or false), the meaning of false (canvas doesn't support or tabId doesn't exist), and critical coordinate unit differences across canvas types (0.01 inch for schematic/symbol, mil for PCB/footprint). This is valuable context beyond the schema, though it does not mention side effects or whether the zoom is persistent.

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 reasonably concise, mixing signature, Chinese purpose, remarks, and returns in a compact form. The purpose is front-loaded with the signature and the Chinese phrase. It could be better structured (separating remarks from main description) but is not overly verbose.

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?

For a zoom tool with four optional parameters, the description provides the essential info: parameter names/types, return type, and canvas unit differences. It does not explain the role of scaleRatio or whether the zoom is absolute vs relative, but these may be inferable from the name. The false return condition and unit note add completeness. Overall, it covers the core needs for correct invocation.

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 only describes 'args' and 'windowId' generically, so the description carries the burden of explaining the actual parameters. It provides the signature with names and types (x, y, scaleRatio, tabId) and the coordinate unit remarks, which adds meaning. However, it does not explain the semantics of each parameter (e.g., what scaleRatio represents, or whether x/y are center coordinates), leaving some inference needed.

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 zooms to coordinates via the signature and Chinese text '缩放到坐标' (zoom to coordinates). It specifies the operation on the editor control and provides the parameter types. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling zoom tools (e.g., zoom_to_region, zoom_to_selected_primitives), the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to understand the basic action.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling zoom tools (zoom_to_region, zoom_to_all_primitives, zoom_to_selected_primitives, etc.). It does not mention alternatives or provide conditions for selecting this specific zoom method, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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