etabs_show_window

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait – that hiding the window improves performance for batch work – which is genuine value beyond the structured fields. It does not describe side effects on running analyses, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool is simple (one optional boolean, output schema present so return values need not be explained) and the description covers purpose plus the performance rationale. It is essentially complete for such a low-complexity tool, with only the parameter mapping left unstated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema does not document the 'visible' boolean at all. The description's 'Show or hide' conveys the parameter's intent but never names it or states the boolean mapping (true = shown), leaving a gap the schema does not fill.

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?

States a specific verb (show/hide) and resource (the ETABS application window), which is unambiguous. No sibling tool overlaps this function, so the resource itself differentiates it, but the description doesn't explicitly contrast it against view-related siblings like etabs_refresh_view or etabs_render_view.

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 phrase 'Hidden ETABS runs faster for batch work' gives a rationale for hiding, implying when hiding is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites, and the showing case is left implicit.

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