desktop_set_expanded

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare action by stating it 'verify state' and 'Reinspect newly exposed children,' which suggests the tool confirms the outcome and updates the element tree. It does not cover failure handling, permissions, or side effects, so there are still gaps.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the secondary behavior (reinspection) is a necessary caveat. Every clause adds value.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and even adds verification and reinspection context. However, it does not define what qualifies as a 'supported control,' what the return value is, or whether it waits for state changes; absent annotations and an output schema, these gaps matter.

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 0% and the description does not explain element_id or expanded. The boolean expanded can be loosely inferred from 'Expand or collapse,' but there is no explicit mapping between the parameters and their roles, which is weak given the description must compensate for an empty 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Expand or collapse') and resource ('a supported control'), and adds a distinct second action ('verify state'). It clearly indicates what the tool does and is distinguishable from sibling tools like desktop_set_value or desktop_set_checked, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 the tool is for expanding or collapsing controls that support this behavior, which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention prerequisites, or point to alternative sibling tools, leaving some selection reasoning to the agent.

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