app_toolbar

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that with no name it lists buttons with rectangles, and with a name it presses the button and reports whether a menu dropped, explicitly noting that many toolbar buttons open menus rather than acting. It does not describe permission requirements or potential destructive effects of pressing, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core dual action, then context and behavioral detail. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundant or filler 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 no annotations, a simple optional parameter, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return reporting. It omits prerequisites such as ensuring the application is attached, which keeps it from a 5.

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% for the single optional 'name' parameter, but the description fully compensates by explaining that omitting name lists buttons and providing a name presses that button. This is exactly the semantic distinction an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('toolbar buttons') and states the dual mode ('or press one by name'). It conceptually distinguishes toolbar behavior from the menu framework ('other half of the bar framework the menus use'), but it does not name or route to specific sibling tools like app_click_menu or app_run_ui_command, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clearly explains the two usage modes based on the optional name parameter and gives a rationale for choosing toolbar actions (commands with no menu equivalent, one-click vs three). It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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