eda_dmt_editor_control_zoom_to_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type (Promise<boolean>) and the coordinate unit spans for different canvas types, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the view is altered irreversibly), error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only. For a zoom operation, the lack of safety info is a notable gap.

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 bit clunky: it starts with a raw method signature, then a Chinese remark, then an English remark about units, and a returns note. It repeats the method name and parameters in both signature and name. It's not overly long but could be more structured and front-loaded with the essential purpose rather than the signature duplication.

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-to-region tool, the description lacks many details an agent would need: the coordinate system origin and orientation, what 'left/right/top/bottom' refer to (bounding box?), whether the zoom is absolute or relative, behavior for out-of-bounds coordinates, and the meaning of the boolean return beyond 'success'. It does mention unit spans, which is helpful, but overall it is incomplete for confident invocation, especially with no output schema to clarify results.

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 input schema only defines 'args' as an opaque array and 'windowId', offering no per-parameter meaning. The description compensates partially by listing the parameters (left, right, top, bottom, tabId) with types in the signature, and it adds crucial unit context: '0.01inch' for schematic/symbol canvases and 'mil' for PCB/package canvases. However, it doesn't explain the coordinate origin, range constraints, or the meaning of each boundary relative to the canvas, leaving semantic gaps.

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 purpose: zoom to a region, as expressed by the method signature and the Chinese remark '缩放到区域' (zoom to region). The verb 'zoomToRegion' and the parameters make it specific, distinguishing it from sibling zoom tools like 'zoom', 'zoom_to', and 'zoom_to_all_primitives' by indicating it targets a rectangular region. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it loses a point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_dmt_editor_control_zoom, eda_dmt_editor_control_zoom_to, or zoom_to_selected_primitives. The description only provides the signature and unit notes, leaving the agent to infer applicability. No explicit exclusions or preferred scenarios are mentioned.

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