rhino_zoom_window

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 conveys that this is an interactive modal operation, but it does not disclose that the tool waits for a user gesture, that the current viewport is changed/overwritten, whether the mode exits after one rectangle, or that no data is returned even though an output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence of about ten words with zero wasted content. The verb and core interaction appear first, and the parenthetical clarifies the mechanism without padding.

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 0-parameter tool with an output schema, the existing description is largely sufficient on parameters and return values. However, with no annotations and many sibling zoom tools, it falls short on explaining the modal, blocking nature of the interaction, the viewport-changing effect, and how this choice differs from zoom_extent/zoom_selected/zoom_layer.

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 tool has zero parameters, and per the baseline for 0-param tools, the description is not required to document parameters. The mention that 'user draws a rectangle' correctly signals that input is captured through canvas interaction rather than through arguments, which adds useful meaning beyond the empty 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 names a specific verb+resource ('Enter zoom-window mode') and adds the defining interaction ('user draws a rectangle to zoom into'). This distinguishes it from the many zoom siblings in the list, such as rhino_zoom_extent, rhino_zoom_object, and rhino_zoom_layer, which zoom based on extents, objects, or layers rather than a user-drawn rectangle.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when you want to zoom by drawing a rectangle around a region of the viewport. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the more targeted sibling tools (zoom_object, zoom_layer, zoom_selected) that an agent might confuse it with.

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