Fl Window

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

The description discloses the main behavioral effects (show, hide, focus, list all) without relying on annotations. It does not mention potential side effects or return details, but for a simple UI-control tool this is reasonably 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?

The description is extremely concise, with no redundant words, and clearly organizes the core action and the special case of omitting the window parameter.

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 simple tool, the description is complete enough to use confidently. It explains the main behavior and the key edge case (omitting window), though it does not describe return values or error conditions; the existence of an output schema reduces the need for that detail.

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?

Although the schema itself has no parameter descriptions, the tool description fully explains both parameters: 'action' implies show/hide/focus values, and 'window' is identified by examples and the omission rule. This compensates for the lack of schema-level detail.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose with explicit verbs (show/hide/focus) and identifies the resource type (FL windows), with concrete examples (mixer, channel_rack, playlist). The omit-window behavior is also described, making the scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides basic usage instructions, such as omitting the window parameter to list all windows, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives.

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