zoom_extents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the scope notion ('whole drawing'), which mildly extends beyond the annotations by implying the framing includes all entities rather than a selection. No mention of what happens to current view state or whether zoom can be undone, which is relevant for a viewport mutation.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Its terseness is more an under-specification issue than a structure problem, so it earns high marks here but not the top score.

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 no-param, read-only viewport action with annotations covering safety, this is minimally sufficient. However, with four sibling zoom/pan tools in the namespace, an agent needs at least a phrase clarifying that this frames the entire drawing rather than a selection or a specified target.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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 phrase 'Show the whole drawing' conveys a fit-to-view operation, and the tool name zoom_extents supports that reading. But the description never uses the verb 'zoom' or names the viewport/extents concept, and it does nothing to distinguish this from the many viewport siblings (zoom, zoom_to, zoom_window, pan, back).

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 versus zoom_to, zoom_window, zoom, or back. The agent must infer that 'whole drawing' means 'fit all geometry in view' rather than a zoom level or a specific target.

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