gsa_display_window

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the core trait: this toggles visibility of the GSA main window rather than mutating data. However, it omits anything about return values, whether the toggle persists, or interaction with analysis tasks, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with the action stated first and zero filler. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the tool is trivially simple (one boolean). Still, the missing boolean semantics and the lack of any guidance on when this should be invoked leave a small but real gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single boolean parameter, and it only partially does: 'Show or hide' implies a visibility toggle but never states that display=true shows and false hides. The parameter name and description don't fully resolve the mapping.

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 pair (show/hide) and a concrete resource (GSA main window), which is unambiguous and not duplicated by any sibling tool. It stops short of any sibling differentiation, but no sibling overlaps this UI-visibility function.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description is purely a one-line statement of effect, leaving the agent to infer context.

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