pan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still earns some credit by stating the viewport offset does not alter zoom level. It says nothing about idempotence despite idempotentHint=false, nor about what happens when neither direction nor dx/dy is supplied.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and no filler. It is efficient but so terse that the second sentence spends its budget on an illustration rather than on the missing invocation logic.

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?

Wait — rescored: for a zero-required, 5-parameter tool with no output schema and only 80% schema coverage, the description never explains what a call with no arguments does, which is a real gap an agent could hit. Combined with the unaddressed direction-vs-dx/dy interaction, it is short of 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?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema already explains amount, coords, and direction, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the single 'right' example and does not clarify the mutual exclusivity between the direction/amount path and the dx/dy path — the one genuinely ambiguous part of a 5-parameter, zero-required 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Move the view' — and adds a scope qualifier, 'without changing zoom', that separates it from the zoom_* siblings. The only weakness is that the second sentence illustrates just one direction ('right') rather than characterizing the operation generally.

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?

'Without changing zoom' implicitly routes the agent to zoom_window/zoom_to/zoom_extents when zoom changes are wanted, but no alternative is ever named and no condition for choosing pan over back or look is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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