show_desktop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them: minimizing is a state change but non-destructive. Beyond that the description correctly discloses the scope of the effect ('all windows'), which is the key behavioral fact. It omits reversibility (there is no sibling to restore windows) and any note that window stacks/positions are preserved, so it adds only moderate value over annotations.

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 seven-word sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 trivial (no params, no output schema, no nesting) so the description covers the core call. However, the surrounding toolkit has extensive window management but no counterpart for un-minimizing, and the description says nothing about how windows are restored or whether the action is a toggle — a real gap for an agent planning a workflow.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly implies no input is required.

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 concrete verb+resource action ('Minimize all windows to show the desktop') that an agent can match to a user intent without ambiguity. It does not need to name a sibling because no sibling performs the inverse or an overlapping action, but it also does not position itself relative to the surrounding window tools (list_windows, focus_window) which stops it being a 5.

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 when-to-use framing, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. an active window manager session), and no statement about how or whether the user gets their windows back. Usage is only inferable from the name. For a one-shot action tool this is tolerable but it is genuinely absent.

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