zoom_window

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 adds only 'fills the screen' – it says nothing about aspect-ratio handling, whether the view persists, or what happens when the rectangle falls outside the last image, and notably does not reconcile the idempotentHint=false annotation with an operation that looks repeatable.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and the effect front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is terse to the point of omitting parameter detail, but no sentence is wasted.

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 simple read-only view operation with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke it. It falls short on the five-parameter surface and on disambiguating among the several zoom/pan siblings, so an agent still needs to open the schema.

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 coverage is only 20% – x0/y0/x1/y1 have no descriptions – but the phrase 'two opposite corners' usefully establishes that the four numbers pair into (x0,y0) and (x1,y1). It does not say whether ordering matters (x0<x1) or how units are interpreted, leaving the undocumented params partly compensated.

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 (zoom) and the exact geometric target (a rectangle defined by two opposite corners that fills the screen), with an analogy to a zoom-window drag. An agent can tell this apart from pan/back/zoom_extents, though it never explicitly names which sibling to prefer.

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 is implied by the analogy 'like a zoom-window drag', but there is no explicit when-to-use vs zoom_extents, zoom_to, look, or pan, and no guidance on when to pick 'world' over 'px'. The agent must infer the situation from the sibling list.

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