Fl Ui Action

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

The description does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, error handling, or whether the action is synchronous. It mentions 'no OS keyboard' but does not elaborate on behavior when an invalid action is provided or if the window is not found. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then efficiently lists the action values. It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan, though the list is long.

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 does not mention the output schema or return values, nor does it explain error handling or failure modes. For a tool with an output schema (as indicated in the context) and three parameters, the description leaves out critical details. It covers the action list and window focus hint but lacks completeness for a user to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description lists all valid 'action' values, which is crucial since the schema lacks enums. It clarifies that 'value' is a delta for zoom actions. However, it does not explain the 'window' parameter beyond 'Optionally focus a window first', leaving ambiguity about its format (e.g., name, ID) and required structure. Given the 0% schema coverage, this is a partial effort.

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 purpose: sending an action to the focused FL window via the API. It specifies the resource (focused FL window), the verb (Send), and lists the exact valid actions. This distinguishes it from other tools that manipulate project state or query status.

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 provides usage context by stating actions are sent 'through the API (no OS keyboard)', implying it should be used when UI automation is needed without simulating keyboard input. It also notes that a window can be focused first, hinting at a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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