catia_fit_all

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the scope of 'everything visible' and the result 'fits in the window', but offers no additional behavioral traits such as whether the view change affects all windows or if there are any side effects. The extra value over annotations is minimal.

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 single, tightly worded sentence with no unnecessary words. The key action and outcome are front-loaded, making it immediately digestible.

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 zero-parameter, no-output view command, the description is sufficient: an agent can correctly predict the behavior without needing return-value specs. It could clarify whether 'everything visible' means all loaded geometry or only the current viewport, but that ambiguity is minor.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately communicates that no input is needed, and the schema's 100% coverage confirms the complete absence of parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Zoom and centre the view') and clearly states the outcome: everything visible fits in the window. It distinguishes itself from sibling catia_zoom, which likely performs a different kind of zoom, by specifying the fit-all behavior.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like catia_zoom or catia_set_view. The context of use is only implied by the name and action; no explicit conditions or exclusions are stated.

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