zoom_to_fit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It accurately states that the tool changes the zoom level to fit content into view, which is the core behavior, but it does not disclose potential side effects, persistence, validation failures, or whether it affects the current file selection/context.

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 sentence that states the action, target, and outcome with no filler. The key behavior is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema or annotation context. The description leaves implicit what the return value is, what happens when fileId is omitted, and how this compares with related camera/pan tools, which weakens end-to-end completeness.

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 schema already covers both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It does slightly enrich nodeIds by framing it as 'single node, multiple nodes, or entire canvas,' but it adds no new meaning to fileId.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('adjusts the canvas zoom level') and its scope ('fit a single node, multiple nodes, or the entire canvas into view'). This differentiates it from camera-related siblings like set_camera_zoom and pan_to_node by emphasizing automatic fitting rather than manual control.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when the agent wants to frame a node, a set of nodes, or the whole canvas. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from set_camera_zoom or pan_to_node, and there is no guidance about when not to use it or alternatives to prefer.

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