eda_pcb_document_zoom_to_board_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and return type (boolean), but does not disclose side effects (e.g., changes viewport), dependencies (requires an active PCB document), or error conditions. It doesn't contradict annotations since there are none, but it severely under-reports behavioral impact.

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 very brief, a few lines, and front-loads the core action and purpose. The inclusion of the return type is useful but not elaborated. No unnecessary sentences, though it could be more structured with clear sections for purpose and usage.

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 simplicity (no arguments, no output schema), the description might be sufficient for basic use, but it lacks critical context: it doesn't mention that it operates on the active PCB document by default, doesn't explain the args array (since it seems to have no parameters), and doesn't state any prerequisites. The return boolean is mentioned but not what true/false indicates beyond 'success'.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters: args (arbitrary array) and windowId. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain what arguments are needed for this specific tool or how to specify the target document. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers parameter names but not semantics.

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 zooming the PCB document to fit its board outline, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like zoom_to, zoom_to_region, and zoom_to_all_primitives by naming the specific target (board outline), though it doesn't explicitly list related siblings.

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 zoom-to-board-outline tool versus other zoom tools such as zoom_to_region or zoom_to_all_primitives. The description merely states the action without any context like 'Use when you need to see the entire board' or exclusions for other zoom functions.

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