Fl Channel Window

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

The description mentions the core behavior of opening/closing and the kind distinction, but it does not explicitly state how the 'show' boolean maps to open versus close. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it leaves some behavioral details only implied.

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 a single concise sentence without unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the two mode options.

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 description is adequate for a simple UI-window tool, but it lacks explicit parameter mappings and any mention of return behavior. Given the bare schema and no output schema, some details remain implicit.

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 schema has no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains 'kind' values and implies 'show' through open/close, but 'index' is only indirectly suggested as 'a channel' and is not explicitly documented as the channel selector.

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 clearly states the tool's action: opening or closing a channel's plugin window or channel settings. It specifies the two kinds, plugin and settings, which helps distinguish the target resource, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling window or UI tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fl_window, fl_ui_action, or fl_channel_set. The description is self-explanatory for its immediate purpose but offers no usage context or exclusions.

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