show_grid

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a read-only operation (ASCII occupancy map) and mentions which cells are filled by which control. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling for invalid tab_index, rate limits, or permissions. The description is adequate 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by a contextual usage hint. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with one parameter undocumented in the description and no annotations, the description is only minimally complete. It tells what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks detail about the parameter.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'tab_index' parameter at all. The tool's description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property definition. This is a significant gap for a single parameter.

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 it provides an ASCII occupancy map of a tab's grid, showing filled and free cells. The verb 'show' and resource 'grid' are specific, and the purpose to visually inspect layout before editing is well articulated. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'show_mesh_graph' or 'get_layout_schema' by focusing on grid occupancy.

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 includes the phrase 'See the layout spatially before editing,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, though the implied use case is sufficient.

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