show_window

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

Annotations already mark it as non-readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context that it brings the window to the foreground for user interaction, and describes the return JSON. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description is efficiently structured with a front-loaded action, a brief use-case paragraph, and a simple Args/Returns section. No redundant or filler content.

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 (one nested param) and the description includes use case, workflow, and return format. It could mention the focus disruption confirmation requirement explicitly, but the schema covers that. Overall complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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 description summarizes params as 'the window by hwnd or title,' which maps to the hwnd and window_title properties. However, it omits display and confirm_focus_disruption. The referenced input schema provides detailed descriptions for all properties, so the description adds marginal value but does not fully compensate for the top-level 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Make a hidden/minimized window visible and bring it to the foreground.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hide_window and move_window. The title 'Show Window (Foreground)' reinforces the action.

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 explicitly states when to use it: when an automated app needs the human, typically for interactive LOGIN. It also provides an alternative workflow: show it, let the user sign in, then call hide_window. This gives clear context and excludes misuse.

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