view

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and a title, the description explains the three specific operations (zoom_extents, zoom_window, get_screenshot) and their purposes. This gives the agent concrete understanding of what behaviors to expect, though it doesn't mention side effects like temporary view changes or file output for screenshots.

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 well-structured with a clear headline followed by bullet-point operations. Each operation is briefly described with just enough detail. There's minimal waste, though the formatting with dashes could be slightly cleaner for parsing.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, 3 operations), annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint), and an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides adequate context. It explains the core operations clearly, though additional details about coordinate systems or screenshot formats would make it more complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that x1, y1, x2, y2 are used for 'zoom_window' operation coordinates. However, it doesn't explain the 'operation' parameter's expected values beyond listing them, nor does it clarify coordinate systems, units, or defaults. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose as 'viewport control and screenshot capture' and lists three specific operations, making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'drawing' or 'entity' which might also involve view-related functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose 'view' over sibling tools like 'drawing' or 'entity', nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases for viewport operations.

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