Show source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral transparency. It correctly states the action (making a source visible in a scene) but does not disclose behavior when the source is already visible, whether the source must already exist in the scene, or potential error conditions. This is adequate for a simple operation but not rich.

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 one sentence followed by an example, clearly front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted text, and the example reinforces both parameter usage and real-world context without redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with an output schema and only two straightforward parameters, the description covers the essential action and provides a helpful example. Minor ambiguity remains about whether the source must already exist in the scene, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema provides only parameter names with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description partially compensates with a concrete example mapping 'my webcam' to source_name and 'Coding scene' to scene_name, but it does not explain expected values or constraints (e.g., source must be in the scene). The example adds semantic value, but not comprehensive 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 uses a specific verb 'Make a source visible' and identifies the resource ('a source') and scope ('in a scene'). The example 'Show my webcam in the Coding scene' clarifies the typical use case and distinguishes this from sibling tools like hide_source by implying scene-specific visibility.

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 used when the user wants to show a source in a particular scene, as the example illustrates. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for showing in all scenes) or point to alternatives like set_source_visibility_in_all_scenes, leaving the user to infer based on the scene_name parameter.

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