imgui-mcp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.7
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes. There is some overlap between set_style/set_theme/set_theme_color/push_style_color and between show/hide variants (show_demo, show_metrics, window_control), but descriptions are specific enough to differentiate them. The redraw between set_window_visibility, move_window, resize_window, and window_control creates some boundary ambiguity, but each is targeted at a distinct use case.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use the consistent verb_noun pattern with the imgui_ prefix. Verbs like get_, set_, add_, remove_, create_, delete_, list_, load_, save_, export_, import_, show_, push_, pop_, move_, resize_, update_, stop_ are used predictably. The only minor inconsistency is some tools use 'set_' where 'update_' might fit (e.g., set_widget_size vs update_widget), but the pattern is overwhelmingly consistent.
Tool Count2/5
With 84 tools, this is far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. While each tool serves a distinct purpose in a comprehensive remote-UI-control server, the sheer size makes it unwieldy for an agent. The count is justified by the breadth of functionality, but it exceeds the 'heavy' threshold significantly. However, for a purpose as broad as full ImGui manipulation, every tool arguably earns its place.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is extremely comprehensive, covering widget CRUD (add/update/remove), window management, scene management, snapshots, undo/redo, input simulation, drawing, styling, fonts, themes, animation, binding, callbacks, and hit regions. For an ImGui remote-control server, this is remarkably complete with no obvious dead ends. One could argue some overlap between set_style/set_theme/theme_color/define_style duplicates, but overall the coverage is thorough.
Average 3.3/5 across 84 of 84 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 15 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 22, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects the currently active scene, whether other scenes are impacted, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with zero waste. It is short and to the point, though it lacks the supplementary behavioral context that would make it more helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It has 1 parameter at 100% coverage, but for a delete operation the description should convey permanence, consequences, and any prerequisites. It does none of these, making it incomplete for a destructive tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (name) described as 'Scene name to delete'. The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Delete a scene by name" clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (scene). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like imgui_delete_snapshot, and given there are scene-management siblings (imgui_create_scene, imgui_switch_scene, imgui_list_scenes), the purpose is clear but contextual differentiation is absent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, whether scenes must exist first, whether errors occur for non-existent scenes, or any relationship to switching/creating scenes. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state that this is a destructive, irreversible operation, what happens if the name is not found, or whether deletion affects any dependent state. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One clean, efficient sentence. No wasted words. The brevity is appropriate for a simple single-parameter operation, even if more behavioral detail would improve completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral disclosure beyond 'delete,' the description is incomplete. It should at minimum address irreversibility and missing-name behavior. The single sentence is insufficient for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single name parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage: 'Name of the snapshot to delete'). The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint details, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource pair ('Delete a saved snapshot by name'). It is unambiguous and correctly distinguishes from siblings like imgui_load_snapshot, imgui_list_snapshots, and imgui_save_snapshot, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites described, and no error/edge-case behavior disclosed. The sibling list includes related snapshot tools (load, save, list) but nothing distinguishes when deletion applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether this is a persistent change, whether it triggers layout recalculation, whether it affects anchored children, whether the widget needs to exist (vs auto-create), or what happens if the size is invalid. 'Set the size' gives no behavioral depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is an efficient single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and minimal. However, it's so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than intentional conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool (setting widget size) with no annotations, no output schema, and a very sparse description. Given the complexity of a widget-sizing operation in an imgui framework (layout implications, coordinate systems, behavioral effects), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions (widget not found, invalid size), or relationship to layout.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter (id, width, height, window) having a short description. The description adds nothing beyond the schema. Per the rubric, with >80% coverage the baseline is 3, and the description provides no additional parameter context like bounds, units (pixels vs logical), or interaction between width/height.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action (set the size) and resource (a widget) clearly, differentiating it from imgui_set_window_visibility, imgui_set_widget_visibility, imgui_set_style, etc. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like imgui_move_widget or imgui_set_widget_anchor, and is quite generic without specifying what 'size' translates to visually or coordinate-wise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that widget size changes may affect layout, whether the widget must exist first, whether the window must be visible, or any usage constraints. No exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't explain what 'setting its open state' means behaviorally - whether hidden windows still exist, whether their widgets remain interactive, whether there's a distinction between 'hidden' and 'closed', or what the return value indicates. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single declarative sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the purpose. Concise but perhaps overly terse given the lack of behavioral detail elsewhere. For the content it conveys, it's efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool, the description should do more heavy lifting. It doesn't address lifecycle semantics (does hide persist?), the distinction between visible=false and window removal, or relationships with imgui_create_window/imgui_remove_window/imgui_window_control siblings. The description is adequate to distinguish intent but inadequate for confident execution.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'window' and 'visible' having descriptions. The description's phrase 'setting its open state' maps conceptually to the 'visible' parameter, but adds nothing beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies - the description doesn't add meaningful parameter nuance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb+resource clearly ('Show or hide a window by setting its open state'). It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like imgui_move_window or imgui_resize_window, but it's generic and doesn't specify behaviors like persistence, toggling, or whether it correlates with a stored 'open state'. It's clear but minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like imgui_window_control, imgui_create_window, imgui_remove_window, or imgui_set_widget_visibility. There's no mention of when hiding/showing is appropriate, whether visible=false destroys any state, or whether it interacts with window control mechanisms. Context is implied but never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description merely restates the obvious mutating action ('resize'). It doesn't disclose whether resizing is immediate or animated, whether it affects child widgets/layout, whether it can be undone, or whether there are constraints on dimensions. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately brief for a straightforward operation. However, the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail needed for a mutating tool with no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutating window operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter enums. The description fails to explain expected behavior: whether dimensions must be positive integers, whether the window needs to exist first (if not, does it throw), what happens if the window is currently animating, or any interaction with layout dependencies. For a tool operating on a managed UI window, more context is warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter ('id', 'w', 'h') having its own description. The schema already provides the baseline for parameter meanings. The tool description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource relationship: 'Resize a window to new dimensions'. It distinguishes from siblings like imgui_move_window (which relocates position) and imgui_set_window_visibility (which toggles visibility). The purpose is unambiguous and specific to resizing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There's no mention of interactions with related tools like imgui_set_viewport_size (which resizes the whole viewport) or imgui_set_resolution_preset. The description offers no context on prerequisites, such as whether the window must already exist or whether animations can affect sizing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention side effects, whether it's a mutating operation (which it clearly is), what happens on failure (invalid window, invalid widget type), whether widgets are immediately rendered or require a subsequent imgui_draw call, or whether the operation is reversible (undoable). For a mutation tool creating UI elements with 100+ types, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and scope. It conveys the breadth of coverage (80+ types) without unnecessary elaboration. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a highly complex tool (35 parameters, 101 enum values for widget_type, no output schema) and the description provides minimal guidance. It doesn't explain which parameters are relevant for which widget types, how the param-to-widget-type mapping works, whether certain params are mutually exclusive, or what happens with nested children. The schema alone is insufficient to correctly select parameters for a given widget_type without deeper mapping knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions '80+ widget types' but doesn't map which parameters apply to which widget types. The schema has 32 optional parameters whose relevance is entirely dependent on widget_type, and the description doesn't help disambiguate which params each widget needs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource ('Add a widget to an ImGui window') and enumerates supported widget types, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like imgui_update_widget or imgui_remove_widget. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with imgui_update_widget, though the verb 'Add' clearly implies creation versus modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There's no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing to create a window first (imgui_create_window), or that imgui_update_widget should be used for modifying existing widgets, or imgui_set_widget_visibility for showing/hiding. The context of window creation requirement is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether 'set' can overwrite existing clipboard content silently, whether 'get' blocks or returns empty on failure, platform differences in clipboard behavior, or whether ImGui must be initialized first. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero wasted words, entirely front-loaded. It's efficient though arguably under-specified; still, for conciseness this is appropriately brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A two-action tool (get/set) with no output schema and no annotations. The description doesn't cover return value for 'get' (is it a string? null on failure?), silent overwrite behavior for 'set', platform variance, or interaction with the ImGui context. For a tool that touches the system clipboard, more behavioral detail would help an agent know what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the 'action' enum already makes get/set semantics clear. The description adds the word 'text' which clarifies the data type of the clipboard content and the 'text' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get or set the system clipboard text via ImGui' with a specific verb ('get or set') and resource ('system clipboard text'). It clearly differentiates from the many input/screenshot/window siblings. It doesn't name an alternative explicitly but the distinct clipboard resource makes purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No elaboration on when to use get vs set, when clipboard access is appropriate, or any context around clipboard integration with ImGui. No explicit exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The 'action' enum partially clarifies usage but the description adds no guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description explains the delayed effect (next frame) which is useful, but doesn't disclose whether the widget must be visible/enabled, whether focus can fail silently, what happens to the previously focused widget, or whether the widget must be in the same window. For a state-changing interaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the action and the key behavioral detail (next frame delivery). No wasted words or redundant content. Everything present earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a state-modifying interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, placing the burden on the description. With only one sentence covering purpose and timing, it lacks critical context: failure modes (silent no-op if widget missing), behavioral constraints (focus requires widget visibility), and interaction with subsequent input events. A tool of this type should provide more operational detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id: 'Widget ID to focus', window: 'Window ID containing the widget') are already documented in the schema. The description adds essentially nothing beyond what the schema states — it doesn't explain the relationship between the two parameters (e.g., IDs are scoped per-window, names must be exact). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set keyboard focus to a widget (it will receive focus on the next frame)' uses a specific verb+resource combination, clearly stating the action and its effect. Among siblings like imgui_click_widget, imgui_hover_widget, and imgui_type_text, this tool's purpose is distinct enough that the agent can differentiate it as the focus-setting operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as imgui_hover_widget or imgui_click_widget, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., the widget must already exist, must be focusable). The parenthetical about 'next frame' timing implies some temporal awareness but does not explain the practical invocation pattern or ordering relative to other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only inspection, whether it reflects live layout or last-rendered frame, what coordinate space the bounding boxes are in (screen, window-local, DPI-scaled), or the return structure. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and core purpose. Efficient and readable. Loses a point only because it doesn't use the available space to add usage or behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must clarify what is returned. It says 'with their bounding boxes' but doesn't specify the bounding box format, whether coordinates are absolute or relative, or whether visibility state factors in. For a tool whose whole value is the returned layout data, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the single 'window' parameter already documented as 'Window identifier'. The description references 'a window' consistent with the schema, but adds no semantic detail beyond it—no format requirements, no validity rules, no behavior for non-existent windows. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get the layout of all widgets in a window with their bounding boxes' which is a specific verb+resource (get layout widgets in window) with a clear scope (all widgets, bounding boxes). It distinguishes from siblings like imgui_get_widget_rect (single widget rect) and imgui_get_window_rect, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like imgui_get_widget_rect, imgui_get_window_rect, or imgui_get_state. The description doesn't note whether this is diagnostic/inspection only, or whether it reflects current rendered state. Context of when this is appropriate (e.g., after layout computation vs. before) is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The description doesn't clarify whether this actually triggers ImGui hover state or just moves raw mouse position, whether it respects safe-area/viewport boundaries, whether it's instant or animated, or whether it requires the target widget to be currently visible/rendered. Key behaviors likely relevant for testing hover interactions are undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, zero filler words. It's appropriately brief for a simple tool. Not penalized for being short since the action is conceptually straightforward.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple hover action this is borderline acceptable, but given no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling set that includes closely related tools (imgui_set_mouse_pos, imgui_click_widget, imgui_focus_widget), the description fails to clarify the tool's specific role. The distinction between 'hover over a widget' and 'set mouse position' is meaningful for automation correctness and is not addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and window) are already described in the input schema. The description adds no semantic nuance beyond the schema — it doesn't clarify what format window/id take, whether IDs are hierarchical/path-based, or how the cursor lands on the widget (center point vs corner). With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Move the mouse cursor to hover over a widget' uses a specific verb (move) plus a resource (mouse cursor) and target (widget). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like imgui_click_widget (clicks) and imgui_set_mouse_pos (sets absolute position). Though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from imgui_set_mouse_pos, the intent is clear enough given the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like imgui_click_widget, imgui_focus_widget, or imgui_set_mouse_pos. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the window must be visible or rendered first), no exclusions, and no indication of whether this triggers hover effects or just positions the cursor. The description is minimal and provides no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description states the mechanism (cursor offset before rendering) but doesn't disclose whether the offset is temporary or persists, whether the widget's stored position is modified, whether this affects hit-testing/collision, or whether subsequent renders re-apply the offset. For a mutation-like operation, this is thin coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the core mechanism efficiently. It includes the key qualifier 'before rendering' which adds meaningful context without bloat. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a spatial mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. Given the complexity of graphics positioning (offset semantics, persistence, interaction with layout/anchor systems), the description should provide more context about the effect scope. The many sibling positioning-related tools (imgui_set_anchor, imgui_set_widget_anchor, imgui_move_window) create ambiguity that the description fails to resolve for an agent choosing among them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the 'before rendering' timing context, which gives some conceptual meaning to the offset parameters (this is a pre-render cursor adjustment). However, it doesn't clarify sign conventions, pixel-relative-to-what origin, or how offset interacts with the widget's existing position. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource action: "Move a widget by applying a cursor offset before rendering." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like imgui_move_window (moves a window) and imgui_set_widget_size (resizes widgets). It could be slightly more specific about what 'move' means relative to widget positioning (vs anchors/layout), but the purpose is reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like imgui_set_anchor, imgui_set_widget_anchor, or imgui_set_widget_visibility. The description emphasizes 'applying a cursor offset before rendering,' implying this is a temporary/adjustment positioning rather than a layout-affecting operation, but this is only implied, not stated. No exclusions or alternative tool references provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't explain the stack semantics - whether popping a non-existent value is a no-op, an error, or crashes; what happens if count exceeds pushed entries; or whether this affects the entire window vs just the widget. The tie to the push/pop stack model is implied but not made explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded. It's appropriately brief for a focused operation, though it could include a brief caveat about stack pairing without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a paired stack operation (push/pop), which is a type of tool that benefits from explanation of the pairing contract. With no output schema and no annotations, and given that imgui_push_style_color exists as a sibling requiring coordination, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the requirements (must be called after a corresponding push, count semantics, behavior when stack underflows), making safe invocation uncertain for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters (count and target). The description adds the concept of 'overrides' and 'style stack,' which provides useful context beyond the schema, but doesn't clarify what valid target values look like or how count interacts with the stack. The description mostly restates what the parameters already convey, hitting the baseline for full coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (pop style color overrides from the style stack) and the resource (a specific window or widget). It distinguishes reasonably from its sibling imgui_push_style_color, which implies the push/pop pairing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with push_style_color or other style-related tools like imgui_set_style_var, leaving some ambiguity about stack semantics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus push_style_color or set_style_var. There's no explanation of the stack-based model (that pops must correspond to prior pushes), no mention of proper pairing with imgui_push_style_color, and no caveats about popping more than was pushed or nesting requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether removing a widget destroys associated state, affects children, triggers re-layout, or is reversible (unlike imgui_undo/redo which exist as siblings suggesting reversibility might be available). No mention of what happens to references or whether the operation persists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste, accurate. It's appropriately short for a simple removal operation. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. A one-line description leaves significant gaps: no error behavior, no prerequisites, no mention of reversibility despite undo/redo siblings existing, no side effects on child widgets. For a removal operation, the description is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and window) are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify the exact format/type expectations of the widget identifier, whether window should be a name or handle, or relationships between the two parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a widget from a window' uses a specific verb (Remove) plus resource (widget) and context (from a window). It's clear among siblings like imgui_add_widget and imgui_update_widget, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from related removal tools like imgui_remove_callback or imgui_remove_hit_region beyond mentioning 'widget'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., whether the widget or window must exist), what happens if the widget doesn't exist, or how this differs from alternatives like imgui_hide_widget or imgui_set_widget_visibility. The 'from a window' phrase implies a constraint but offers no exclusion/alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is a terse one-liner that reveals nothing about side effects—does this simulate input persistently or transiently? Does the window need to be focused/hovered for scroll to work? Does it fail silently if the window is not found or not scrollable? None of these behavioral aspects are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It states the essential action clearly. It is appropriately minimal but doesn't cross into being incomplete for a tool this simple.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is relatively simple (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the lack of any behavioral context makes it incomplete. The description doesn't explain how the scroll is delivered (synthetic vs passthrough), whether the mouse must be positioned over the window first, or what the function returns/does on success or failure. For an action tool with no output schema and no annotations, more context is warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters (window ID and delta_y with direction semantics). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides—the wheel-scroll context is implicit. The schema's 'positive=up, negative=down' convention is helpful and self-explanatory, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Scroll the mouse wheel over a window' uses a specific verb (scroll) and resource (window), clearly stating the primary action. It distinguishes from siblings like imgui_click_widget and imgui_hover_widget, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from imgui_set_mouse_pos or imgui_press_key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't clarify whether this tool synthesizes a synthetic wheel event versus expecting an actual user input, nor does it state when to use delta_y versus other scroll approaches. No context about prerequisites (e.g., window must exist/be visible) is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state the range of valid scale values, what happens if an invalid or extreme value is given, whether the change is persistent across snapshots/resets, or if it affects all future windows retroactively. For a global state-mutating tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose immediately and doesn't pad with unnecessary context. While it could include more behavioral detail, as a concise statement it's well-formed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple (one parameter, no output schema), but it's a global state mutation that affects the entire UI. The description doesn't explain range limits, persistence, or interaction with other settings. Given its simplicity, it's borderline adequate, but for a mutate-everything global tool it should disclose more about scope and limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% — the single 'scale' parameter already includes examples (1.0, 1.5, 2.0). The description reinforces the meaning by calling it a 'DPI/UI scale factor' but adds little beyond the schema itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Set), resource (DPI/UI scale factor), and scope (for all ImGui sizes). It distinguishes this from siblings like imgui_set_viewport_size or imgui_set_resolution_preset, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate. Purpose is clear and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether this affects rendering quality, text scaling, layout, or whether it should be set before windows are created. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that 'set mouse cursor position' is an input action, which implies it alters mouse state. However, it doesn't clarify whether this triggers hover events, whether it affects subsequent click coordinates, whether it produces any visual feedback, or whether there are coordinate space concerns (e.g., window vs screen origin). These are material behaviors for an input tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single declarative sentence that conveys the purpose efficiently. It is appropriately short for a simple 2-parameter tool, though it could earn a place for a line about usage context. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects). The description covers the core action and coordinate space. However, it doesn't mention edge behaviors like whether negative coordinates are clamped, whether the position is relative to the viewport or the window, or related input tools to consider. For such a simple tool, this is borderline adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema documents both parameters as X and Y coordinates. The description adds the key context that they are 'screen coordinates,' which clarifies the coordinate space beyond the bare schema, but adds nothing else about ranges, bounds, or units.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets the mouse cursor position in screen coordinates, using a specific verb ('set') and resource ('mouse cursor position'). It's clear enough, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool imgui_click_widget which also implicitly moves the cursor as part of clicking. The verb+resource is specific and distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives like imgui_click_widget, imgui_hover_widget, or imgui_get_input_state. There are no stated use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative with no situational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The description states it applies a style theme but does not disclose whether this mutates persistent state, whether the change is reversible, whether it affects future widget rendering, or whether custom color overrides can be combined with a theme simultaneously. For a state-setting operation with zero annotation coverage, key behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that clearly states the primary purpose and mentions the color override capability. It is appropriately short with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more specific about the behavior details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of nested colors objects (custom override map with specific array format), the description gives only a high-level mention of 'custom color overrides' without elaborating on the structure. However, the schema fully documents the colors parameter format (additionalProperties with 4-element number arrays), so the schema partially compensates. The tool has complexity (2 themes-related siblings like imgui_set_theme, imgui_set_style_var, imgui_push_style_color) and the description doesn't distinguish these, leaving the completeness gap significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — both theme (with enum values dark/light/classic and 'Built-in theme to apply') and colors ('Custom color overrides as a map...') are documented in the schema. The description adds the notion of theme selection and the custom override option but doesn't add meaningful detail beyond the schema. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the ImGui style theme' with specific verb 'Set' and resource 'ImGui style theme', and enumerates the built-in themes (dark, light, classic) plus the custom override option. However, siblings like imgui_set_theme, imgui_set_theme_color, imgui_set_style_var, and imgui_push_style_color overlap in the styling space, and the description doesn't differentiate this tool from those set-related siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Siblings include imgui_set_theme, imgui_set_theme_color, imgui_set_style_var, and imgui_push_style_color — all in adjacent styling territory — yet the description says nothing about when to prefer this tool or how it differs from those. The context of custom color overrides implies use cases, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether setting a style var temporarily or permanently changes state, whether it requires prior window setup, whether it automatically triggers a redraw, or whether particular var_name values are restricted to certain types. The persistence/scoping of the change is completely undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, compact and to the point. The examples are useful without being excessive. Front-loaded with the core purpose first, then type breakdown. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is reasonably complete. The main gaps are: no list of valid var_name values (only examples), unknown error behavior for unsupported names, and no mention of persistence or redraw behavior. But given the simplicity of the tool, it's minimally sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described. The description adds some value by clarifying that value can be a float OR a [x,y] array and lists valid var examples. However, it only names a handful of the many ImGui style variables, so the agent might be uncertain whether other unsupported names exist or would error.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets an ImGui style variable and distinguishes between float and vec2 variants with concrete examples. The verb+resource (set style var) is specific and the purpose is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling imgui_set_style or imgui_set_theme/theme_color, though the distinction is fairly obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus imgui_set_style, imgui_push_style_color, or imgui_set_theme_color. It doesn't mention whether this persists, whether it affects global or per-window state, or whether there are alternatives for color-based styling. The context of when to use a style variable over other styling tools is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state what the SDL window resize does to internal layout, whether widgets reflow/recompute, whether there are minimum/maximum size constraints, whether this triggers redraw or layout events, or what happens if invalid dimensions are provided. For a resizing operation that affects the entire application, this is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that captures the essence. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb 'Resize'. Could arguably add more behavioral detail, but what's there is concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only two simple parameters, the description is serviceable but thin. It doesn't address effects on layout, relationship to resolution presets (a clear sibling concern), or edge cases. Given the straightforward nature of the parameters, this tool could be complete with slightly more context about layout reflow or DPI implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both width and height described as 'Viewport width/height in pixels'. The description adds the parenthetical 'SDL window' clarifying what viewport means, which is marginal added value. Neither the description nor the schema indicates constraints like positive integers, so both would need validation elsewhere.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Resize the application viewport (SDL window) to specific pixel dimensions'). It clearly states the tool resizes the viewport to pixel dimensions. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like imgui_resize_window or imgui_set_resolution_preset, though these operate on different concepts (window vs viewport), so the parenthetical helps distinguish.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings like imgui_set_resolution_preset and imgui_resize_window do related things, and the description doesn't clarify when to resize the viewport directly versus using presets or resizing windows. No exclusions or context given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions the toggle nature ('Show or hide') and content ('version info, credits') but doesn't disclose side effects, whether the visible state is tracked, or what happens when shown repeatedly. Minimal disclosure beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-param boolean toggle tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is functional but thin. It doesn't clarify how visibility state is managed relative to other window visibility tools (imgui_set_window_visibility), nor whether the about window is a distinct managed entity. Given the large sibling set with similar show_* tools, more context would help disambiguation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — the 'show' parameter is described as 'Whether to show the about window', which matches the description's language. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter meaning adequately and the description doesn't add extra nuance beyond it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (show/hide) and resource (ImGui about window) with the content context (version info, credits). It distinguishes from siblings like imgui_show_demo and imgui_show_metrics by naming the specific about window, though it doesn't explicitly contrast those tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like imgui_show_demo, imgui_show_metrics, or imgui_show_style_editor. The toggle semantics (show OR hide based on boolean) are implied by the parameter but not explicitly explained, and there's no mention of whether this toggles an existing state or sets it absolutely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool toggles visibility but doesn't describe whether metrics include garbage collection/state inspector, whether the window persists across frames or snapshots, or the effect on performance while enabled. For a toggle tool with zero annotation coverage, these gaps are notable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence that earns its place—states the action, the resource, and the window's purpose. No filler or redundancy. Could slightly expand on behavioral details but as a concise statement it is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple toggle tool with high schema coverage and a single required boolean, the description is largely adequate for invocation. However, with zero annotations, no output schema, and a debug/instrumentation tool that has more behavioral nuance (window persistence, frame effects, whether it modifies UI state), a bit more behavioral context would round it out. A simple toggle arguably doesn't need more, but the debugging nature warrants light additional disclosure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'show' boolean parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond that—it implies this boolean controls visibility state but doesn't clarify edge cases like whether 'false' hides or closes the window permanently. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb+resource ('Show or hide the ImGui metrics/debug window') and adds context about what the tool shows (draw calls, vertices, etc.). It distinguishes itself from related tools like imgui_show_demo, imgui_show_about, and imgui_show_style_editor since it names the specific window and content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain when a user would want the metrics window as opposed to the demo/style editor/about windows, nor does it note that this controls a debugging overlay distinct from normal window management. The context is implied by the tool name but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior (toggle show/hide) and that the editor allows interactive editing of colors and sizes. However, it does not describe side effects such as whether editing affects the global style state permanently, whether it persists, or whether changes are reversible. For a UI-mutating tool, this is partial disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that conveys the purpose and the interactive editing capability in the parenthetical. There is no waste or redundancy. It earns a high score for brevity while still expressing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple boolean-toggle tool with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. The parenthetical adds useful context about what the window does (edit colors and sizes). However, given the large sibling set with related show/set-style tools, a brief note on how this differs from programmatic style tools would strengthen completeness. No output schema exists, but none is needed for this simple action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'show' boolean parameter, which is well-described in the schema as 'Whether to show the style editor window.' The description's 'Show or hide' phrasing adds minimal extra meaning since the schema already fully captures the parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource: 'Show or hide the ImGui style editor window.' It distinguishes reasonably from sibling show tools like imgui_show_demo, imgui_show_metrics, and imgui_show_about by naming the specific style editor window, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't differentiate from imgui_show_demo, imgui_show_about, or imgui_show_metrics (which show other developer windows), nor from imgui_set_style and imgui_push_style_color (which modify style programmatically rather than through the interactive editor). Usage context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It describes what the tool controls but not any side effects: whether operations are reversible, whether collapsing affects focus, whether setting bg_alpha requires special conditions, whether scroll accepts normalized vs pixel coordinates, or what happens on invalid values. For a multi-action mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence that efficiently enumerates all six supported actions. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema information. It's appropriately sized for a multi-action tool, though slightly dense in its list form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more weight. The tool has 6 distinct actions with heterogeneous value types, making it moderately complex. The description doesn't cover edge cases, coordinate conventions, numeric ranges, or what happens if the window id doesn't exist. For a multi-mode mutation tool with no structured context, this is insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds the 'value' field semantics by mapping action types to expected value formats ([x,y] pairs, bool, float), which is genuinely useful beyond the schema. However, it doesn't clarify coordinate systems (window-local vs screen), alpha range (0-1 vs 0-255), or scroll units. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers parameter names/types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Control') and lists the exact resource (window properties) with enumerated domains (position, size, collapsed state, focus, background alpha, scroll position). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like imgui_move_window or imgui_resize_window by covering all window property controls in one tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those specific siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like imgui_move_window, imgui_resize_window, or imgui_set_window_visibility. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., window must exist), exclusion cases, or when multi-property control is preferred over single-purpose siblings. No when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't state whether the window must already exist, what happens if the id is invalid, whether the window must be visible, whether coordinates are in screen space or ImGui local space, or if this triggers a re-layout of children. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the verb and resource immediately. It could arguably include more context (coordinate space, error behavior), but the conciseness dimension rewards efficiency, not completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple mutation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, no output schema, and no error/return explanation. The description does the minimal job of identifying the action. However, for a tool that requires an existing window id and involves coordinate semantics, more context about prerequisites, coordinate space, and failure modes would materially improve agent decision-making. Given the low annotation coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, x, y). The description adds the semantic that x/y constitute a 'new position' implying coordinates, but doesn't clarify units (pixels?) or coordinate origin (top-left? local parent?). Baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage, with a small credit for the position semantics implied by 'move to a new position.'
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Move a window to a new position" clearly identifies the verb (move), resource (window), and result (new position). It distinguishes from siblings like imgui_resize_window (which changes size) and imgui_set_window_visibility (which changes visibility). However, it doesn't specify that coordinates are in screen pixels vs. relative offsets, and it doesn't distinguish from the related imgui_move_widget.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It doesn't mention that id must reference an existing window, whether coordinates are absolute or relative, or that this differs from imgui_scroll_window (which scrolls content) or imgui_set_window_visibility. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive/mutating operation, but the description doesn't disclose consequences: what happens if the id doesn't exist, whether removal is reversible, or whether subsequent operations on the removed region fail. The sparse description leaves these important behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with zero wasted words. The description is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the action verb. For a simple single-parameter tool, this length is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, single-parameter removal operation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is arguably sufficient at a baseline level. However, given that there is no annotation coverage at all, some additional context about failure behavior or the relationship to add/update hit region tools would improve completeness for an agent navigating the large sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage and only 1 parameter ('id' described as 'Hit region id to remove'), so the schema already explains the parameter fully. The description reinforces that the id identifies the region to remove. With only one self-explanatory parameter and full coverage, there is little more the description could add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a hit region by its id' clearly states the action (remove) and resource (hit region), and identifies the key operand (id). It's clear about what it does, though it doesn't add detail about what a hit region is or how it relates to siblings like imgui_add_hit_region or imgui_update_hit_region, which would strengthen differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling set includes imgui_add_hit_region and imgui_update_hit_region, but the description doesn't distinguish removal from those operations or mention any prerequisites such as the id needing to be valid/existing. Context must be inferred entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It doesn't state whether creating a scene that already exists overwrites or errors, whether the scene becomes active immediately, what happens to previously created scenes, or whether window IDs must already exist. For a creation/mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with no filler. It conveys the essence without waste, though it could front-load the behavior more explicitly. The conciseness is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation-style operation, the description is thin. It doesn't address idempotency, active-state behavior, ordering of windows, or interaction with the scene switch/delete siblings. For an agent that must orchestrate scene workflows across imgui_create_scene, imgui_switch_scene, and imgui_delete_scene, the description provides insufficient operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'name' (Scene name) and 'windows' (List of window IDs visible in this scene) already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'visible together' adds slight context that windows are multi-selectable as a group but doesn't add semantics beyond baseline schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a named scene') and clarifies the scene's purpose ('controls which windows are visible together'). It distinguishes from siblings like imgui_set_window_visibility and imgui_delete_scene by indicating what a scene represents, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context: a scene governs window visibility as a group. However, it doesn't explain when to use scenes vs. direct visibility control (imgui_set_window_visibility), or whether scenes complement/exclude that mechanism, leaving ambiguity for an agent deciding between approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Load... into the live ImGui atlas' implies a mutating operation, and the merge/size/glyph behavior is only implicit. It doesn't disclose error outcomes (e.g., failure on invalid path), whether the operation is reversible, overwrite behavior for duplicate IDs, or whether this modifies state globally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with zero filler. The forward reference to imgui_set_font adds value without bloat. Could arguably add a bit more behavioral context, but for its length it is efficient and front-loads the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a font-loading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on behavioral context. It doesn't mention error handling for invalid paths, ID collision behavior, or any persistence guarantees. The structured schema covers parameters well, but the overall tool semantics — especially side effects and requirements — are under-explained for an agent to invoke confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters already have descriptive text in the schema (unique font identifier, native-app-visible path, merge for icon fallback, size with default, glyph preset enum). The description adds marginal value beyond the schema by framing the 'stable ID' concept, but doesn't elaborate further on parameter usage or format expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb+resource ('Load a TTF or OTF font into the live ImGui atlas under a stable ID') with a specific, distinct purpose. It distinguishes from the sibling imgui_set_font by noting the loaded font can then be made the global default, though it relies on that single reference rather than fully contrasting with imgui_list_fonts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes one usage pointer ('Use imgui_set_font to make it the global default'), which hints at the workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly address when to load a font vs. alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., that a window/app must be alive to load into the atlas), or when merging glyph_ranges would be appropriate beyond the param description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the destructive nature ('Remove') and cascading effect ('all its widgets'), but doesn't note irreversibility, whether undo can recover it, whether hidden windows can still be removed, or effects on focus/state. For a destructive mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action, zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the cascade detail is meaningful information rather than padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description provides only the minimal 'removes window + widgets' information. It lacks details about irreversibility, recovery options via undo/redo, or relationship to set_window_visibility. Given zero annotation coverage and simple schema, more behavioral disclosure would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Window identifier to remove'. The description adds that removal cascades to widgets, giving context about what the id refers to. With one well-documented parameter at full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is met and the description's cascade detail elevates it slightly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a window and all its widgets' clearly states the verb (remove) and resource (window), and adds the scope detail that all widgets are removed with it. This distinguishes it somewhat from sibling tools like imgui_remove_widget (which removes only a widget) and imgui_clear_all, though it doesn't explicitly call out the sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that removing a window also destroys its widgets as a caveat implying alternatives, nor does it contrast with imgui_set_window_visibility (hide) or imgui_undo/redo recovery options. Context must be inferred from the name and one-liner.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a persistent/destructive change, whether it affects already-created windows/widgets, whether it's reversible, or any side effects on rendering. For a state-mutation tool with zero annotations, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero wasted words. The critical edge case ('default' to restore embedded font) is front-loaded into the same sentence as the purpose. Exceptionally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), and the description covers the core semantics. However, for a state-mutation tool with no annotations, it would benefit from noting scoping (global vs per-window), persistence across redraws, or what visual effect to expect. Adequate for a simple tool but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (the single 'id' parameter is fully described as 'Loaded font ID or default'). The description adds the special 'default' value semantics, which is helpful, but doesn't explain what a 'loaded font ID' is beyond what the schema states. Description adds marginal value while schema covers the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb+resource: 'Set the global default font by loaded ID.' This distinguishes it from sibling imgui_load_font (loading) and imgui_list_fonts (listing), making the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: you set a font after loading it by ID, and 'default' restores the embedded font. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like imgui_load_font, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says 'Update' implying mutation, but doesn't disclose whether updates are reversible/undoable (there's an imgui_undo sibling), what happens if a property is incompatible with the widget type, whether partial updates are allowed, or whether widget_type replacement causes side effects. It also doesn't mention the selection/all-widget update semantics beyond 'existing widget'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key updateable properties. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it omits behavior complexity that a null-annotation tool warrants.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with 24 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain how widget_type replacement works, which properties are valid for which widget types, whether the tool is undoable, or any error/edge-case behavior. For a high-parameter-count mutation tool lacking annotations, this is notably under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 24 parameters with specific property descriptions. The description adds a useful summary enumeration of what can be updated (value, text, checked state, label, content, color, items, selected index, enabled state, plot data) but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource ('Update an existing widget's properties') and even enumerates which specific properties can be updated, distinguishing this from imgui_add_widget and imgui_remove_widget siblings. However, it doesn't strongly contrast with the closely-related imgui_set_widget_size, imgui_set_widget_visibility, or imgui_set_widget_anchor siblings, 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes clear that this is the update tool (vs add/remove). However, it provides no guidance on when to use this versus set_widget_size, set_widget_visibility, set_widget_anchor, or other more targeted sibling update tools, nor when NOT to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether this mutates state, whether a window with the same id is rejected or overwritten, what the return/response looks like, or any behavioral effects on the scene. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. States the core purpose and the three supported capabilities (positioning, sizing, flags) efficiently. Concise without being under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a window-creation tool with 7 well-documented parameters and fully described schema, the description covers the essentials of what the tool does. However, with no annotations and no output schema, some additional behavioral detail (e.g., what happens on duplicate id, whether it becomes active immediately) would improve completeness for an agent deciding to invoke it in a scene-building workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 7 parameters. The description adds high-level context (positioning, sizing, window flags) that maps conceptually to the x/y/w/h and flags parameters, but it doesn't add specific meaning beyond what the schema already states. This is the baseline 3 given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a new ImGui window' with a specific verb and resource, and notes that windows are containers for widgets and support positioning, sizing, and flags. It's clear and distinguishes from sibling tools like imgui_move_window and imgui_remove_window, though it could more explicitly contrast with imgui_set_window_visibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies creation use-case ("Create a new ImGui window") and mentions it's a container for widgets, which hints at needing it before adding widgets. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like imgui_set_window_visibility, imgui_window_control, or imgui_remove_window, nor does it note prerequisites or restrictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names what data types can be queried, which is helpful, but doesn't describe return format, whether values reflect the current frame or the previous one, or any latency/timing semantics of input state. For an input-reading tool, frame timing is a critical behavioral detail that is entirely absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the queryable categories. Efficient with no wasted words. Could arguably be more useful, but this is appropriately tight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only query tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, the lack of output schema means the description doesn't mention what the returned data structure looks like for each query type, and no timing/frame semantics are disclosed. Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, this is minimally viable but leaves meaningful gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (only one param 'queries' which is described as 'List of input state queries to perform'), so baseline is 3. The description lists the available query enum values in prose ('mouse position, mouse buttons, keyboard keys', etc.), which slightly adds context about what categories of queries exist beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain semantic differences between lookalike queries like mouse_down vs mouse_clicked or key_down vs key_pressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool queries input state (mouse position, buttons, keys, item interaction states) with explicit verb 'Query'. It distinguishes reasonably from sibling tools like imgui_press_key and imgui_set_mouse_pos which mutate input state rather than read it, and from imgui_state which appears to be a separate, broader state reader.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for reading the current UI input state, which is clear enough. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs the related imgui_get_state tool, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a frame must have been drawn first for state to be meaningful). No exclusions or alternative naming provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description doesn't disclose what happens when no filter is provided (does it remove ALL callbacks?), whether removal is scoped to a window/scene, side effects of removal, or what success/response looks like. 'Remove' implies mutation but the destruction semantics are underspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence, no waste, immediately states the purpose and the filtering capability. Could be slightly more informative but is appropriately terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter filter tool with zero required parameters and no annotations, the description should clarify edge cases (removal with no filters, interaction between filters, scoping). It's minimally adequate but leaves the all-removal and filter-combination semantics ambiguous, which an agent needs to know for a destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters have descriptions in the schema (Action type to remove, Trigger widget to remove callbacks for). The description restates that these are filters but doesn't add format/syntax details, wildcard behavior, or whether filters can be combined. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Remove declarative callbacks') and mentions the two filtering parameters (trigger_widget and/or action). It's clear about what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling imgui_set_callback (the counterpart), though the removal intent is clear enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says callbacks can be filtered by trigger_widget and/or action, which implies usage context (both parameters optional, filter-based removal). However, it doesn't explain when to choose this over alternatives, when all callbacks are removed (if neither filter given), or add/remove semantics relative to imgui_set_callback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It states what the tool returns (screenshot path and widget location data) which adds value. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the widget is not found, file write failures, or whether the screenshot can include off-screen widgets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, efficient, no filler. It communicates the core capability and output in about 20 words. Could be improved slightly with structured formatting but is appropriately brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a moderate-complexity non-destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't describe the exact format of the widget location data returned, or how it handles edge cases. Given the sibling tools context with multiple similar screenshot tools, more differentiation guidance would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters documented). The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it clarifies that 'path' defaults to temp directory (also in schema) but doesn't explain the format of 'widget location data' return or how widget IDs relate to window IDs beyond the schema's brief descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific action ('Capture a screenshot') with a clear resource (widget bounds). It mentions returning screenshot path and widget location data. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like imgui_screenshot or imgui_screenshot_annotated, though the widget-bounds focus differentiates it implicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling screenshot tools (imgui_screenshot, imgui_screenshot_annotated). There's no mention of prerequisites like draw state, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether the anchor affects subsequent layout behavior, whether it recalculates on window resize, whether it's persistent across draws, or any side effects. For a layout operation that could significantly affect widget rendering, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-formed sentence that conveys the purpose efficiently. No filler or redundant content. It's appropriately brief given the schema already covers parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters (3 required), 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and the presence of many sibling layout tools (imgui_move_widget, imgui_set_anchor, imgui_set_widget_size), the description could do more to clarify how anchor positioning interacts with the layout system. The statement 'for responsive layout within its window' is helpful but doesn't clarify edge cases like what 'none' does or how this differs from imgui_set_anchor. Given the moderate complexity, a slightly richer description would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 5 parameters. The description adds the conceptual context that the anchor is for 'responsive layout', which helps understand the offset params as pixel adjustments from the anchor point. However, this could be enhanced by explaining that anchor positions are relative to the window (which is implied by the parameter structure) or explaining the layout algorithm.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Set'), resource ('a widget's anchor position'), and purpose ('for responsive layout within its window'). It's specific and differentiates from the sibling tool imgui_set_anchor by focusing on per-widget anchor within a window, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling or contrast with it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it's for responsive layout positioning but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like imgui_move_widget or imgui_set_anchor. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The 'for responsive layout' phrase gives some context but doesn't name alternatives or clarify boundary conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states persistence ('persist until changed') and scope ('apply to all draw commands in the layer'), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the transform is cumulative with previous calls, how it interacts with per-command transforms or widgets, whether it requires the window/layer to exist first, or any performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a tight two-sentence summary with meaningful persistence and scope information. No wasted words, though it could arguably front-load the 'persists until changed' behavior earlier for better scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more weight. It covers purpose, persistence, and scope, which are the primary behaviors. However, for a transformation tool with 6 parameters, it lacks guidance on cumulative vs absolute semantics, interaction with existing transforms, or error conditions (e.g., non-existent layer/window). These gaps are notable given the absence of annotation support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters well. The description adds that these transforms are layer-wide and persistent, which contextualizes the parameters slightly. However, it doesn't add format details beyond the schema, such as opacity clamping behavior or rotation direction (clockwise/counterclockwise) for the rotation parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('apply a transform') and the resource ('an entire draw layer'), listing the four specific transform types (translate, rotate, scale, opacity). It distinguishes from siblings which are mostly about input, rendering, and widget manipulation, though it doesn't name a specific alternative tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes transforms 'persist until changed' and 'apply to all draw commands in the layer', implying it is a layer-wide operation versus imgui_update_draw_command which targets individual commands. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs per-command transforms, nor any ordering/exclusion guidance such as whether this must be called before adding draw commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether fields not specified in 'fields' remain unchanged (though 'without replacing the entire layer' implies this), whether out-of-range indices fail or are ignored, whether values are validated for bounds (e.g., color length), or whether a re-draw/refresh is automatically triggered. For a mutation tool touching ImGui state, this is a meaningful gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. There is no waste. It could add a touch more behavioral guidance without becoming bloated, but as-is it is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (nested fields object with 9 updatable properties) and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It successfully conveys the core intent and the partial-update semantics, but does not explain what the field keys mean, how the command index maps to draw commands, or what the expected behavior is on invalid indices. For a fairly complex state-mutation tool, this is a moderate completion level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented (window, index, layer, fields). The description adds the contrast of partial vs full layer replacement, which helps clarify the 'fields' subset semantics. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of the field keys like p1/p2/p3/p4 (which presumably map to ImGui draw command point arrays) or the valid ranges for values such as color components. The schema provides structure, so baseline 3 is appropriate, but the p1-p4 semantics remain unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (update), the resource (a single draw command within a named draw layer), and the scoping (without replacing the entire layer, by index). It distinguishes itself from a bulk-replace operation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like imgui_update_widget or imgui_transform_draw_layer, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies this is for targeted single-command edits (supported by 'without replacing the entire layer'), and the parameter details hint at the when. But there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., using imgui_transform_draw_layer for bulk transforms, or imgui_draw for redrawing). Usage context is adequate but not enriched beyond the obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the two effects (bring to front, give focus) but does not disclose side effects like whether this changes window state permanently, affects visibility, interacts with layering, or requires the window to be currently rendered/visible. For an action tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that states both effects without waste. Appropriate length for a simple single-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool (no output schema, one parameter), the description covers the core action. However, with zero annotations, the lack of any mention of behavioral implications (whether it persists, whether the window needs to exist, interaction with layering) leaves a moderately sized gap in completeness, though the tool's simplicity keeps the burden limited.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'id' parameter described as 'Window identifier,' so the schema already documents it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no additional meaning about what format the id takes (e.g., name vs handle) or how to obtain it, but there's little burden given the single well-described parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb+resource: 'Bring a window to the front and give it focus.' Distinguishes reasonably from siblings like imgui_set_window_visibility, imgui_set_window_layer, and imgui_focus_widget by uniquely combining z-order and focus actions on a window. However, the distinction between this and imgui_focus_widget (which focuses a widget) is slightly ambiguous—it names the resource as a window here.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage context (brings a window to the front, gives focus) but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Does not mention when one would prefer imgui_focus_widget, imgui_set_window_layer, or the window_control tool over this one, nor any exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites like whether the window must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it simulates a click but does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it trigger callbacks? is the click actually processed by the UI or just synthetically forwarded? does it require the widget to be visible/enabled first?). For an input simulation tool, this behavioral ambiguity is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that states the action clearly with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose effectively. However, being this minimal means it fails to add the behavioral context needed for a simulation tool, but for pure conciseness, it earns a strong score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is decent but thin. The schema documents all params, so the core mechanics are covered, but for a mouse-simulation tool with many siblings (hover, drag, press_key, set_mouse_pos), the description should clarify click semantics relative to those siblings and any prerequisites (visibility, enabled state). The description is minimally complete but doesn't rise above adequacy.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (id, button, window) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the contextual meaning of 'simulate a click' which ties the parameters together. Per the rubric, 100% coverage earns a baseline of 3, and the description doesn't add extra parameter-level semantics beyond the schema (e.g., no clarification on what happens if id is invalid).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Simulate a mouse click on a widget by its ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling interaction tools (hover, drag, press_key, set_mouse_pos) since it targets a specific widget by ID rather than coordinates. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like imgui_hover_widget, imgui_press_key, or imgui_set_mouse_pos. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must the widget be visible or hoverable first?), or scenarios where clicking by ID is preferred over coordinate-based clicks. The action is clear, but the when-to-use context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it retrieves position and size, which is a read operation, but doesn't disclose the return format, whether coordinates are in screen vs local space, or behavior if the window id doesn't exist. It's a simple read so the transparency is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. Every element contributes to the meaning. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states what is retrieved (position and size). However, it doesn't explain the coordinate system or the unit of measurement, nor how this relates to the window hierarchy. Adequate but could add useful context about returned values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the id parameter as 'Window identifier'. The description adds no additional meaning about the id parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (get), resource (window), and the data returned (position and size). It distinguishes from imgui_get_widget_rect (which targets widgets, not windows) and imgui_get_viewport_size (which targets viewport). The purpose is clear though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether it requires a prior window creation, whether the window rect differs from the viewport rect, or note that imgui_get_viewport_size or imgui_get_widget_rect might be appropriate for other cases. Context is implied but no explicit usage direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. While the word 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation, it doesn't explicitly confirm safety, disclose output format, or describe whether it reflects current vs all-loaded state. For a read-only tool with zero annotation coverage, more explicit disclosure would be valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence, no waste. It efficiently packs the essential information (what's listed: fonts, paths, sizes, active font). Slightly under-specified in terms of behavioral stance but appropriately brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema, no nested objects), so the complexity bar is low. The description covers the key information a caller needs to understand the purpose and expected return content. It's adequate but doesn't elaborate on return structure, which for a simple list tool is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add regarding parameter meaning. The baseline 4 applies for a 0-parameter tool; the description reasonably focuses on what information the call returns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists loaded fonts, their native paths and sizes, and which font is active. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It's distinguishable from siblings like imgui_set_font and imgui_load_font, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a read-only inspection use case (listing fonts) which naturally contrasts with set/load font operations, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative-referencing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this resizing is destructive to the current layout, whether it affects DPI or scaling, whether it persists across frames/animations, or what happens to existing windows/widgets when the viewport shrinks (e.g., from 4k to mobile). For a resize operation, these are meaningful behavioral concerns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One clear single sentence, zero waste. Front-loaded with the action verb. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 required param, no output schema), so the bar for completeness is lowered. However, with no annotations and no behavioral disclosure about side effects on the scene/layout, the description leaves the agent uncertain about whether this is safe and what consequences resizing has on existing content. Adequate but with room to add safety/behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% — the preset enum itself documents all 7 valid values with a description ('Resolution preset name'). The description mentions 'common resolution preset' which aligns with the enum, but doesn't add conversion details like which presets are portrait vs landscape or actual pixel dimensions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameter fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Resize the viewport to a common resolution preset' clearly states the verb (resize), resource (viewport), and scope (common resolution preset). It distinguishes from imgui_set_viewport_size by focusing on presets rather than arbitrary dimensions, though it doesn't explicitly call out that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you want a preset resolution rather than a custom size), but doesn't explicitly state 'use imgui_set_viewport_size for custom sizes' as a contrast. Given there is a sibling imgui_set_viewport_size doing related work, an explicit when-not statement would strengthen this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate the core effect (changing render order) and the semantics of higher/lower values. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is persistent across frames, whether it affects hit-testing/input order, or how it interacts with the existing z-order stack. For a simple setter with no annotations, this 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. The description states the action and the value semantics immediately. Perfectly front-loaded and sized appropriately for a simple two-parameter setter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with 2 fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground. However, given the existence of closely related siblings (imgui_bring_to_front, imgui_transform_draw_layer, imgui_window_control), a note about when to use this vs those would strengthen completeness. The tool is minimally complete but leaves the sibling-differentiation gap open.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — both 'layer' and 'window' already have descriptions in the schema. The layer description in the schema ('Layer value (higher = on top)') already conveys the meaning, and the window field is self-explanatory. The description adds minimal value beyond schema, but with full coverage, baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear purpose: 'Set the render layer (z-order) of a window' with a specific verb (set) and resource (window render layer). It explains the meaning of the layer value in plain terms ('Higher layers render on top'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like imgui_bring_to_front or imgui_transform_draw_layer, but the intended semantic is clear enough for an agent to understand its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no context about when this tool is preferred over imgui_bring_to_front or imgui_window_control. The description implies usage (manipulating window z-order) but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison against the two-sibling tools that also affect layer/ordering behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden entirely. It does reveal the tool toggles a demonstration window, which implies a visual UI action rather than data mutation, but it doesn't disclose side effects, performance implications, or whether this is persisted across snapshots/scenes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose with zero wasted words. The parenthetical about showcasing widgets is genuinely informative for understanding what the window displays.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple toggle tool with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, it doesn't clarify how show=false behaves (hides window), whether the state persists, or any interaction with scene/window management siblings. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but not exceptional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single boolean 'show' parameter already described ('Whether to show the demo window'). The description mentions showing/hiding which aligns, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows/hides the ImGui demo window and mentions it showcases all available widgets. It uses a specific verb (show/hide) with a clear resource (demo window), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like imgui_show_metrics or imgui_show_about beyond the window name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like imgui_show_metrics, imgui_show_about, and imgui_show_style_editor that also control debug window visibility, but the description doesn't address when the demo window is preferred or any caveats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (stopping animations) but does not disclose what happens to the animation state (e.g., whether position resets, whether a stopping animation leaves widgets in place, side effects on related widgets). For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail is warranted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loads the key action immediately. The optional-widget behavior is conveyed efficiently in a parenthetical clause. Appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple conditional-action tool with two well-documented params. The description is mostly complete for basic usage. However, given the existence of sibling imgui_stop_all_animations, some clarity on which to choose and behavioral side-effects would improve completeness. No output schema exists, so return value expectations are unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both window and widget with descriptions. The tool description adds the conditional meaning ('omit widget to stop all'), which goes slightly beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds marginal extra context about widget omission behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (stop animations) and the resource (a specific widget or all animations in a window). It differentiates the specific-widget vs all-in-window scope. However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling imgui_stop_all_animations, which could be relevant context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (omit widget to stop all animations in the window), which gives a clear conditional usage pattern. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this over imgui_stop_all_animations versus the sibling tool, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., animations must be running via imgui_animate).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for typical behavioral disclosure. It does mention the animation is over time, supports easing and looping, provides duration, and mentions ping-pong looping behavior indirectly via the loop param. However, it does not disclose whether running multiple animations on the same property conflicts, whether animations auto-continue across frames, or how the agent observes completion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences covering purpose, mechanism, and capabilities. Zero waste. It's reasonably front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor opportunity to add usage caveats but current density is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters including enums for ease functions and properties, and no output schema, the description does a competent job but leaves gaps: no mention of behavior when animation completes, whether the property is set to 'from' immediately, interaction with existing animations on the same property, or the relationship to imgui_stop_animation. For the tool's moderate complexity, this is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds the concept of it being a tween and mentions loop/ping-pong, which reinforces the 'loop' and ease parameters. But it adds minimal bonus meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (animate), resource (widget property), and mechanism (tween/animation), with mention of easing functions and looping. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tools imgui_stop_animation and imgui_stop_all_animations, which are the natural counterparts for managing animations; while those are about stopping, not starting, the description could clarify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case (animating widget properties) but provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternative approaches, no mention of prerequisites (widget must exist, valid property combo), and no guidance on whether animation requires a draw/render loop to take effect. It does not name alternatives like directly setting widget state via imgui_update_widget for instant changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates a destructive, irreversible reset behavior, but doesn't disclose whether this can be undone via imgui_undo, whether it affects things like loaded textures, snapshots, styles, or scenes, or what the exact scope of 'all' covers. For a destructive bulk operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that states the action and the resulting state with zero wasted words. Appropriate for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 0-parameter bulk reset operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It conveys the core action but doesn't disclose the full scope/non-scope (e.g., what persists afterward, whether it's undoable, whether resources like textures are cleaned up). Given the potential destructiveness, more information would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there's nothing for the description to add. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately has no parameter information to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource scope 'all windows and widgets', and states the resulting state ('resetting to empty state'). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like imgui_remove_window or imgui_remove_widget which are more targeted removal operations. The 'all' scope differentiates it implicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a destructive bulk operation that clears everything, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs imgui_remove_window/imgui_remove_widget/delete_scene. The 'reset to empty state' phrasing gives some context, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one behavioral trait — that repeated calls preserve earlier geometry (append semantics) — and supports the mode param with 'replaces it'. However, it doesn't disclose failure behavior (e.g., what happens if window doesn't exist), performance implications of 1024 max commands, or any coordinate-system/origin assumptions the agent needs to place geometry correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core action, repeated-call behavior, and supported primitive list. No wasted words. Slightly light on structural guidance (e.g., no mention of the mode/id defaults), but front-loaded and minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool (19 command types, multiple coordinate/color params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is thin. It lists supported shapes but doesn't clarify per-type parameter usage, coordinate system, or how mode interacts with the id layer. The schema carries much of the load, but an agent would need to infer a lot about constructing valid command objects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (id, mode, window, commands) already has meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description adds the layer-preservation behavior tied to 'append vs replace' mode, which is light value-add beyond the schema. It doesn't explain how the command type enum maps to which point parameters (p1-p4) are needed per type, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it appends draw commands to a named layer in a window, with specific verb (append/draw), resource (layer in window), and a useful list of supported primitives. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like imgui_update_draw_command or imgui_transform_draw_layer, but the verb+resource pairing is reasonably distinctive given the 'draw' focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (drawing custom geometry in a window) but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It mentions 'Repeated calls preserve earlier geometry by default' and supports multiple primitives, but doesn't contrast with imgui_add_hit_region, imgui_update_draw_command, or note any prerequisites like a window needing to exist first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It correctly states this is a generation/export operation (non-destructive, reads current layout and produces code). It mentions the output format (C++ code) and scope (all windows and widgets with current values), which is reasonable transparency. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (could it overwrite a file at path?), limitations, or fidelity guarantees of the generated code.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Efficient and gets the core purpose across immediately. Could add a tiny bit more differentiation but is concise and clear as-is.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is conceptually simple (1 optional param, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description covers the primary behavior. However, it doesn't compare against the format-related siblings (export_lua, export_json), which would be valuable for tool selection. For a simple export tool, the description is adequate but leaves the format-selection guidance to the agent's inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (1 param, the 'path' with a clear description). The schema already explains that 'path' is optional and code is returned inline if omitted. The description adds the context that the output is C++ ImGui code, which partially relates to what gets generated. However, the description doesn't add details beyond what the schema prefix 'Optional file path to write the C++ code to' already covers—with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Export current UI layout as C++ ImGui code') with a clear scope ('recreates all windows and widgets with their current values'). It's clearly distinct from sibling tools like imgui_export_lua and imgui_export_json, which export to different formats. Loses a point for not explicitly naming these alternatives in a way that differentiates format selection criteria.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies usage context (exporting to C++ format), but there's no explicit guidance on when to choose C++ over Lua or JSON exports. No mention of when this is appropriate (e.g., code generation for embedding, offline copying) versus when the other export formats are preferred. The use of the optional path parameter is clear but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the stack-balancing requirement (which is good), but doesn't disclose that pushed styles only affect subsequent draw calls until popped, the lifetime/scope of the push, failure behavior if unbalanced, or what happens when 'target' doesn't exist. The description gives minimal behavioral context for a stateful mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each earns its place. The first states the purpose and what's being targeted; the second provides the critical stack-balancing constraint. No wasted words or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 required parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the description doesn't need to cover return values. However, for a stateful mutation with significant behavioral implications (stack lifetime, pop requirements, scope of effect), the description could provide more operational detail. The sibling set includes related style setters that create ambiguity about when to use this versus alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each of the 3 parameters documented. The description adds context by framing the operation as a style stack push, which helps understand col_idx semantics. However, the description doesn't add much beyond the schema — it doesn't clarify valid col_idx ranges beyond the examples, nor the RGBA range constraints already implied by the schema. Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 applies, and the stack context earns a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (push) and resource (style color override onto the style stack) with a specific target (window or widget). It distinguishes from the sibling imgui_pop_style_color by noting the balance requirement, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with imgui_set_style or imgui_set_theme_color which are also in the sibling set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states it must be balanced with imgui_pop_style_color, which is an important usage constraint. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool vs alternatives like imgui_set_style, imgui_set_style_var, or imgui_set_theme_color, nor does it clarify the 'specific window or widget' scoping versus global style changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it saves a BMP file but doesn't disclose return behavior, whether the file is overwritten if it exists, permissions needed, or what happens on failure. The format parameter note that 'currently only bmp is supported natively' is a helpful transparency detail, but the overall behavioral disclosure is minimal for a file-writing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that captures the core action, output format, and file-saving behavior. No wasted words. Could be slightly more informative about return values, but for a simple capture tool this is an efficient size.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, some behavioral details are missing (return value, overwrite behavior, whether the frame must be drawn first). The description doesn't fully cover edge cases like what happens with an empty frame or if the save fails. Adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters well. The description itself adds marginal value beyond the schema — it confirms the output is BMP despite the format enum allowing ppm. The format parameter's note about only bmp being supported natively is meaningful but comes from the schema, not the description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (capture), resource (current ImGui frame), and output type (BMP file). It distinguishes reasonably from sibling tools like imgui_screenshot_widget and imgui_screenshot_annotated, which imply different screenshot variants. However, it doesn't explicitly name these siblings to differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a general frame-capture tool, and the schema confirms no required parameters. It doesn't explain when to use this vs. imgui_screenshot_widget or imgui_screenshot_annotated, though the sibling names suggest scope differences. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned explicitly, leaving the agent to infer distinctions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool adds widget ID overlays, which is the key behavioral trait differentiating it from a plain screenshot. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether this is a read-only operation, what impact overlays have on the saved image, or any side effects. For a screenshot capture tool, the risk profile is modest, so a 3 is fair — it conveys the core behavior but omits some nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the action and its distinguishing overlay feature. No wasted words or filler. It's appropriately concise for a simple tool with one optional parameter. Could arguably be slightly more informative for the usage dimension, but as written it's tight and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity tool — one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. Given the schema fully covers the parameter and there's no output schema to document, the main missing context is usage differentiation from sibling screenshot tools. With 60+ sibling tools in the family, explicitly naming which alternative to use when would make this more complete, but for its simplicity the description is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single `path` parameter is already fully documented by the schema with its default behavior (system temporary directory). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides for this parameter. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies — the schema handles the documentation burden adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it captures a screenshot with widget ID overlays for debugging and inspection. It uses a specific verb ('Capture') plus resource ('screenshot') and a distinctive modifier ('with widget ID overlays'). It differentiates itself from `imgui_screenshot` (plain capture) and `imgui_screenshot_widget` (likely single-widget capture) through the overlay feature, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a debugging/inspection use case ('for debugging and inspection') which gives contextual direction. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over `imgui_screenshot` or `imgui_screenshot_widget`, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. The use case is implied but not made explicit with named sibling comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the anchor is relative to the viewport, which is a meaningful non-mutating positioning operation, but doesn't disclose whether this overrides existing positions, interacts with window layers, or requires a drawn window. The description is adequate but not rich on side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence with useful examples embedded (top_left, center, bottom_right). It's front-loaded with the verb-set purpose and wastes no words. Could arguably be slightly more descriptive about the offset semantics, but the schema already covers this, so the brevity is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple 4-parameter positioning tool with 100% schema coverage and no nested objects, the description is mostly complete. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it provides no guidance on interaction with window visibility, layering, or overriding existing positions, which leaves some ambiguity for the agent in more complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter (window, anchor, offset_x, offset_y). The description does not add detail beyond what the schema provides about parameter semantics. The phrase 'relative to the viewport' adds some context about the anchor enum's meaning, meeting the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set a window's anchor position relative to the viewport' uses a specific verb (set) and clearly identifies the resource (window position) and the anchoring concept relative to the viewport with concrete examples. It distinguishes from the sibling imgui_set_widget_anchor and imgui_move_window by focusing on anchor positioning rather than pixel movement, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (setting window anchor relative to viewport) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't name alternative tools like imgui_move_window or imgui_set_widget_anchor, so an agent must infer which tool is appropriate based solely on the 'anchor' terminology.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The description states it sets pixel insets that anchored windows will respect, which gives reasonable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to windows already anchored (do they reflow immediately?), whether the change persists or is transient, whether it affects all windows or only future ones, or any interaction with viewport size. With zero annotation coverage, more behavioral disclosure would be warranted for a stateful configuration tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence: 'Set safe area insets (in pixels) that anchored windows will respect.' It front-loads the verbs and core purpose, and has no wasted words. It's appropriately minimal for a straightforward 4-parameter setter. Slightly more context could be added, but the current form is efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter setter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits key context: the meaning/range of values (can insets exceed viewport size?), whether unsetting/resetting is possible, and how this interacts with the many sibling layout tools (imgui_set_anchor, imgui_set_window_control, imgui_set_viewport_size). Given the tool sets state that affects window layout behavior, some additional context about scope and persistence would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with all four parameters (top, bottom, left, right) having clear descriptions ('Top inset in pixels' etc.). The description and schema together make the parameters self-explanatory. The description doesn't add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, which places it at the baseline 3. No constraints like non-negative values or max bounds are indicated, but the schema itself is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Set safe area insets (in pixels) that anchored windows will respect.' It uses a specific verb (set) and identifies the exact resource (safe area insets) and the behavioral effect (windows will respect them). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but among the many imgui_* siblings, this configuration-focused purpose is distinct and clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to configure the safe area that anchored windows respect, which gives context for when it would be used (when setting up window anchoring/layout). However, it doesn't describe when NOT to use it, what the defaults are if unset, whether this is a global or per-window setting, or how this relates to the sibling imgui_set_anchor / imgui_set_widget_anchor tools. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the conditional expressions supported and that visibility can be toggled. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to the widget when a referenced widget is destroyed, whether conditions evaluate dynamically, or whether this overrides manual visibility controls.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence plus example list, efficiently front-loaded. The condition examples are the most valuable content and are placed prominently. No wasted words, though a brief behavioral note could be added without bloating.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 simple string params, complete schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, the condition expression grammar is the most complex aspect and only examples are given—no mention of comparison operators, multiple conditions, or expression syntax rules. Given many sibling tools exist, the lack of guidance on how visibility interacts with other widget controls is a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents window, widget, and condition parameters. The description adds value by showing the condition expression format with concrete examples, which is beyond bare schema. This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage with some added context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets conditional visibility on a widget, with a specific verb+resource structure. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from its sibling imgui_set_window_visibility, but the resource (widget vs window) differentiates them implicitly through naming and description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides example condition formats ('always', 'never', 'widget_id.checked==true', 'widget_id.value>0.5') which imply common usage patterns. However, it doesn't explain when to use this vs alternatives, nor when it applies (e.g., only for certain widget types), and the condition expression grammar is only partially illustrated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The partial-update semantic ('Only provided fields are updated') is a valuable behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't disclose what happens with invalid ids, whether the hit region's other attributes not in the schema are affected, whether this triggers a redraw/re-render, or any constraints on combining p1/p2/points simultaneously.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise at one sentence and clearly front-loads the purpose. The key partial-update semantic is packed into a short second sentence. It could arguably be condensed, but the two-sentence structure earns its keep by adding the 'only provided fields' clarification. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, 0% enum coverage, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context. It identifies what can be updated but omits details an agent would need for correct invocation: coordinate system, interaction enum values are in the schema but what 'update' means for them (replace vs. merge), transform semantics, and error behavior for nonexistent ids. The nested transform object and multiple shape-representation params (p1/p2 vs points) demand more guidance than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17%, with only the 'id' parameter having a description ('Hit region id to update'). The other five parameters (p1, p2, points, transform, interactions) have types/schemas but no explanatory text. The description loosely references these as 'shape, transform, or interaction flags' which maps partially but doesn't explain coordinate conventions, units (pixels vs local space), how p1/p2 vs points interrelate, or whether interactions replaces or merges the existing set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (update) and resource (hit region) and enumerates the updatable aspects (shape, transform, interaction flags). It distinguishes from imgui_add_hit_region and imgui_remove_hit_region siblings by implying this is a modification operation. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling as an alternative or delineate scope boundaries beyond the three categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides partial usage guidance by noting 'Only provided fields are updated,' which implies partial-update semantics and helps the agent know that unspecified fields are preserved. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, no mention of prerequisites (the hit region must exist), and no indication of when to prefer this over add/remove functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states hit regions are invisible and detect listed events, which is helpful, but it does not disclose mutation implications, whether adding a hit region requires a parent window to already exist, layering/ordering behavior among overlapping regions, or whether coordinates are window-local vs global. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. The shape and interaction lists add value without redundancy. Slightly more could be said about coordinate systems or prerequisites, but as written it is compact and non-wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, a 100%-coverage schema, and rich enum/nested-object definitions, the description reasonably covers the main behavioral points: invisible interaction detection, the companion read function, and the supported shapes. The main omissions are coordinate space semantics and prerequisite constraints (window existence), but given the schema's strength and the 4 straightforward shape params, the description is moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 9 parameters well, including per-shape meaning of p1/p2 and the interaction enum. The description adds the interaction-type list and shape set, but these are largely restated from the schema enum and field descriptions. It adds modest value (default interactions, 'detects wheel/drag/double-click') beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Defines a specific verb+resource ('Add an interactive hit region'), lists supported shapes explicitly, and distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the companion reading function (imgui_get_canvas_events) and sibling mutation tools (imgui_update_hit_region, imgui_remove_hit_region). The scope is clear and unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states it pairs with imgui_get_canvas_events for reading interactions, which gives usage context. However, it does not contrast against the sibling hit-region tools (update/remove) or clarify when to choose this over imgui_click_widget, nor does it mention required companion steps like creating a window first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the tool reports 'binary path and availability' which adds some detail, and implies this is a read-only status operation. However, it doesn't state return format, whether it may block/wait, error behavior if not running, or whether the status reflects a local or remote process.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, compact sentence that conveys purpose and key return contents without waste. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status-check tool, though it could note the ready-state distinction without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter status tool, the description is reasonably complete, but given no annotations and no output schema, it should clarify what 'status' includes (running/stopped states), whether the return differentiates binary-path-not-found, and any prerequisites. The description covers availability and path but leaves the status semantics somewhat vague.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add regarding parameters. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 since no parameter documentation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check if... running') and identifies the resource (ImGui application) and return content (status, binary path, availability). It's clear among the many sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from imgui_get_state or imgui_drain_events which could overlap in checking application state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a status/readiness check before performing ImGui operations, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. Among many sibling interaction tools, a reader must infer this is a pre-check diagnostic. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return values comprehensively (values, checked states, text content, selected indices, interaction flags) which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a snapshot vs live state, whether calling it has side effects, or the size/format of the returned data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact — two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second lists the specific data returned. It's front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. Could potentially add more behavioral detail, but for its length it's well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 0-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job explaining what's returned. However, with no output schema, it would benefit from describing the return format structure (e.g., a map of widget IDs to their states) to help the agent parse results. Also, the interaction flags (clicked, changed, etc.) are listed but not explained in terms of lifecycle (when they reset).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied — there's nothing to document beyond the schema, which already shows empty properties. The description correctly focuses on return values rather than inputs, which is the right emphasis for a state-getter with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: gets current state of all windows and widgets. It specifies the types of state returned (values, checked states, text content, selected indices, interaction flags), which is specific and useful. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from imgui_get_input_state or imgui_get_canvas_events, but the parameter-less nature and the detailed return types make the purpose reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a read-only state inspection tool but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like imgui_get_input_state or imgui_get_canvas_events. It doesn't mention when this is appropriate (e.g., after imgui_draw) or when a different tool would be better. There's a clear implied usage context for inspecting UI state, but no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description states it returns dimensions, which is minimally transparent about the read-only nature. However, it does not disclose details like whether the returned value is in pixels, physical or logical units, whether it reflects the framebuffer size or the window size, or whether it can be affected by DPI scaling. For a simple getter this is borderline acceptable but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise declarative sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless getter with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. The main gap is not specifying the unit of measurement (pixels) or whether the value reflects logical vs physical dimensions. The sibling pair imgui_set_viewport_size helps provide context, but consumers could benefit from knowing the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema is empty). With no parameters to document, there is nothing for the description to add regarding parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('viewport/SDL window dimensions'). It specifies that it returns dimensions, which is the core purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling imgui_set_viewport_size in terms of being a read vs write operation, though the verb 'Get' strongly implies the read nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since it's a getter, one could reasonably want to know when to prefer it over imgui_get_window_rect or imgui_get_state. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does state the key destructive behavior: 'Clears the current layout and recreates all windows and widgets.' This is a meaningful disclosure of the wipe-and-replace behavior. However, it doesn't disclose whether there's an undo/redo hook, whether the import is atomic (partial failures), or how it interacts with the undo stack vs. imgui_load_snapshot.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and adds the critical destructive behavior in the second. Appropriate length for a tool with a simple purpose and clear parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex (nested objects, destructive operation, mutating state) but has no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the destructive behavior and format reference, which is good. However, it could benefit from noting whether this integrates with the undo stack (there are imgui_undo/imgui_redo siblings) and whether the two input methods (json object vs path) have any precedence or merge behavior. For a destructive operation that recreates an entire layout, slightly more behavioral context would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description notes the 'same format as export_json output' which adds practical context, but both fields (json, path) are already clear from the schema. The either-or relationship between the two params is stated in the schema ('Use this OR the json field'). The description adds marginal value beyond the schema in this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Import a UI layout from JSON') and clearly references the sibling export tool format. It distinguishes from imgui_export_json indirectly. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from imgui_load_snapshot, which could be a competing alternative for restoring UI state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes the format matches imgui_export_json, which provides some correlation context. It mentions the destructive side effect ('Clears the current layout'), giving implicit guidance that this is a full replacement operation, not a merge. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with imgui_load_snapshot or explain when to prefer one over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavior: the current state is pushed to the undo stack before restoring. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the named snapshot doesn't exist (error behavior), whether state is replaced entirely or merged, or if it's destructive to the current state being discarded beyond undo.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states the primary action and the second discloses the undo behavior. Zero filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary action and the undo push. But it omits error handling for unknown snapshot names and doesn't clarify how this interacts with the imgui_undo/redo stack, leaving behavioral ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the single 'name' parameter clearly described as 'Name of the snapshot to restore.' The description reinforces the purpose of the name parameter but adds little beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb-resource pair: 'Restore a previously saved snapshot by name.' This distinguishes it functionally from save/list/delete snapshot siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from imgui_undo, which also restores state — creating some ambiguity between snapshot restore and undo operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (restoring snapshots) and mentions undo behavior, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus imgui_undo or imgui_redo. Given a large sibling set with related tools (imgui_save_snapshot, imgui_list_snapshots, imgui_undo), explicit alternatives would strengthen guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the tool registers a declarative callback (side-effect: registering a handler) and lists supported actions, but doesn't disclose whether callbacks can be removed (imgui_remove_callback exists as sibling), whether multiple callbacks on the same widget can stack or overwrite, or what happens on unload/clear_all. It does provide the 'no polling round-trip' performance framing which is useful context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists actions and adds the performance benefit. It's appropriately short given the schema already documents parameters. Minor miss: it doesn't mention trigger_event or that params/trigger_event are optional, but that's covered in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and 2 enums — moderate complexity. The description plus 100% schema coverage covers the core usage well. However, for a tool with side-effect behavior (registering persistent callbacks) and no output schema, the description doesn't fully address what happens on invocation (immediate effect? just registration?), callback lifecycle, or interaction with imgui_remove_callback. There's decent coverage but meaningful gaps remain for a stateful registration API.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. However, the description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining the declarative action model and summarizing the action→params mapping ('toggle_visibility/set_visibility: {"widget", "visible": true}...'). The trigger_event default (clicked) is noted in the schema. The nested params object semantics are reasonably explained, though the description could clarify that trigger_event and params are optional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set a declarative callback action that fires automatically when a widget event occurs' — a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It lists the four action types, distinguishing it from related sibling tools like imgui_remove_callback and imgui_bind. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like imgui_bind/unbind or imgui_get_canvas_events, leaving some ambiguity about the 'declarative' nature relative to event polling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys that this is for declarative callbacks that fire automatically, contrasting with 'no polling round-trip needed' — implying an alternative to manual event polling. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool. The context (vs imgui_bind, imgui_remove_callback) is implied but never made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It does not state whether the change is persistent vs. scoped, whether it affects only the next frame vs. all subsequent frames, or whether it requires a re-draw. No mention of side effects on other connected style properties. Adequate but not rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences total, front-loaded with the primary action. The color name enumeration is efficient and useful. No wasted words, but could be slightly tightened.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does and valid input values. However, no behavioral clarity on persistence/scope, and no guidance distinguishing from push/pop alternatives given a crowded sibling space with related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both params described (RGBA values with range, and color name format). The description adds value by enumerating valid color names (WindowBg, Button, Header, etc.), which goes beyond the schema's single example. This compensates for the absence of enum validation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Set a specific ImGui style color by name.' Distinguishes from imgui_set_style (bulk), imgui_push_style_color (stack-based), and imgui_set_style_var (style variables, not colors) through the 'by name' qualifier and emphasis on individual color setting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit statement of when to use this vs. alternatives like imgui_push_style_color or imgui_set_theme. The distinction between setting a persistent color vs. push/pop scoped colors is implied but never stated, though the color names list provides useful context for legitimate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description reveals the key behavioral trait: switching scenes hides windows from other scenes ('showing only its windows'). However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether the current scene's state is preserved, whether the scene must already exist (vs implicitly created), or what happens if the named scene doesn't exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that delivers purpose and primary behavioral effect. Zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with a clear purpose, the description is mostly adequate. However, given there are no annotations and no output schema, some additional context about error behavior (unknown scene name), state preservation, or relationship to other scene-management tools would improve completeness. The tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There's only one parameter (name), and the schema description covers it 100% ('Scene name to activate'). The description's 'named scene' aligns with the parameter meaning, but adds no additional detail beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb (switch) and resource (scene) clearly: 'Switch to a named scene, showing only its windows.' This clearly differentiates from sibling scene tools like imgui_create_scene, imgui_delete_scene, and imgui_list_scenes, which have different purposes. The behavior of 'showing only its windows' adds scoping context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (to activate a scene and hide other scenes' windows), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives. Sibling tools like imgui_set_window_visibility achieve similar effects for individual windows, but no explicit guidance is given about choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The parenthetical transparently reveals that focusing happens automatically before typing, and that characters are injected. However, it doesn't disclose whether text replaces or appends to existing content, whether special characters are supported, timing/delay behavior, or what happens if the widget isn't focusable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and it's concise without sacrificing the key behavioral note about focusing. Ideal length for this tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 required params and no output schema, making it moderately simple. The description covers the mechanical behavior (focus, inject) but leaves open questions about edge cases: what happens if the widget isn't focusable, does typing append or replace, and how this differs from imgui_press_key for single-key input. For a text-injection tool, these behavioral gaps are notable but not severe.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (window, id, text) already have basic descriptions. The description adds context that 'text' is 'typed' (injected as characters) and that 'id' identifies the target widget, which is marginal added value beyond the schema. The description doesn't clarify the relationship between window and id (whether they're hierarchical or independent).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action—'Type text into a widget'—with a parenthetical clarifying the two-step behavior (focuses first, then injects characters). It clearly identifies the resource (widget) and the operation (typing text). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like imgui_press_key or imgui_click_widget, though the parenthetical does differentiate it from a plain injection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The parenthetical implies it handles the focus step automatically, which hints at usage context. But it doesn't contrast with alternatives like imgui_press_key (single key vs text) or note any prerequisites like the widget needing to be a text-input type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the per-frame continuous behavior ('Each frame the source widget's property is read, scaled, offset, and written to the target'), which is valuable side-effect transparency. However, it doesn't disclose what imgui_unbind does to reverse this, lifetime/cleanup semantics, or whether creating a new bind overwrites an existing one.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded. The 'each frame' behavior is stated early. The example adds practical value. Could be slightly tighter but it earns its space with the operational detail and example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanic (per-frame binding) and gives one example, but doesn't address compatibility between source_property and target_property, what happens on repeated binds for the same target, or how to break a bind. Reasonable but leaves operational edge-cases undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal param value: it illustrates the scale/offset flow and gives a binding example, but doesn't clarify ambiguities like which target_property values pair with draw_layer vs hit_region vs widget targets, or whether source_property and target_property must be compatible types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Bind' with a specific resource (widget values to visual properties). It explains the operational flow (read, scale, offset, write) and provides a concrete example (slider value to draw layer opacity). This distinguishes it well from siblings like imgui_animate and imgui_unbind.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the general use case (binding widget values to visual properties) and an example, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus alternatives like imgui_animate, imgui_set_callback, or imgui_update_widget. No exclusions or comparison to sibling tools for similar binding use-cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It's clear this is a read-like operation that drains (consumes) events rather than just peeking, which is useful. It discloses the return fields (events, queue depth, dropped count) well, though it doesn't state side effects of draining (events are consumed and cannot be re-read) explicitly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence declares the action and returns; the second enumerates the three output fields. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter drain tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and return values. The 'dropped since previous drain' detail is particularly informative, indicating rate-limit/capacity behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete despite minimal guidelines.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single max_events parameter, which has a clear description with defaults and bounds. The description doesn't add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate; the 'bounded batch' phrase loosely correlates with max_events but adds no syntax or behavior details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (drain) plus a resource (bounded batch of native UI events), clearly stating it returns events, remaining queue depth, and dropped count. This distinguishes it from siblings like imgui_get_canvas_events and imgui_get_input_state, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'bounded batch' phrasing implies this is partial draining rather than a full flush, giving some usage context. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this versus imgui_get_canvas_events or imgui_get_input_state, nor when repeated draining is necessary to empty the queue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns a bounding box in pixel coordinates, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the widget must be currently rendered/visible, whether it returns correct values before a draw pass, or whether it requires the widget to exist. The word 'actual rendered' hints at needing a render pass but isn't explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded purpose. Without verbosity for a conceptually simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only geometry query with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is returned (bounding box) and in what units (pixel coordinates). Minor gap: no statement about what happens for hidden/nonexistent widgets, but this is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions). The description adds the 'rendered' and 'pixel coordinates' context beyond the schema, which is helpful for interpreting the returned values, but doesn't add specifics about id/window format or behavior for missing widgets. Baseline 3 applies since schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the actual rendered bounding box of a widget in pixel coordinates' uses a clear verb (get) with specific resource (rendered bounding box of a widget) and clarifies the units (pixel coordinates). It's distinct from sibling imgui_get_window_rect (window-level) and imgui_get_layout, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or differentiation from alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving widget geometry, but doesn't explain when to prefer this over imgui_get_layout, imgui_get_window_rect, or related geometry tools. Usage context is inferred but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. As a read/list operation, there's little risk to disclose, and the description accurately reflects safe behavior. It doesn't discuss output format or whether the 'active scene' is a separate field, but the low-risk nature keeps this adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter listing tool with no additional complexity to document.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no parameters, no output schema, and clear purpose, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what data it will receive (scenes, window lists, active scene). It could mention whether the output is relevant to debugging or inspection workflows, but this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the parameter dimension is trivially satisfied. The baseline of 4 for zero-param tools applies here since there's nothing to explain beyond what the schema declares.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource (scenes, window lists, active scene). It's specific enough to distinguish from siblings like imgui_list_snapshots, imgui_list_fonts, and imgui_get_state, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it's for inspection/listing purposes (when you want to see current scene state), which naturally contrasts with mutation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs imgui_get_state or other inspection tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool re-applies reversed state and pairs with imgui_undo, but doesn't disclose failure modes (e.g., what happens if there's nothing to redo), whether it's idempotent, or whether state is partially restored. For a zero-parameter state mutation tool, more transparency about its failure behavior would be valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. The description clearly states the operation (redo) and the mechanism (re-applies state reversed by imgui_undo) without padding. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (zero params, no output schema), so the description covers the core semantics adequately. However, for a state-mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, it could mention edge behaviors like whether redo fails silently or errors when the undo stack is empty. The pairing with imgui_undo is helpful context but doesn't fully cover the behavioral contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently vacuous. With 100% schema coverage and an empty properties object, there's nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 for zero-param tools applies here since there are literally no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this tool redoes the last undone operation, pairing it explicitly with imgui_undo. The verb 'redo' plus the resource context (undo history) makes the purpose clear. It doesn't fully clarify what 'redo' means in terms of actions, but it's specific enough to distinguish from the 80+ siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the tool re-applies the state reversed by imgui_undo, which implies it should be used after an undo operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., no undo history means nothing to redo), nor does it specify prerequisites or edge cases like what happens when called without a matching undo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies persistence of state but doesn't disclose whether this writes to disk, whether it clobbers an existing snapshot with the same name, or what happens on error. Basic intent is disclosed but consequences of the operation are under-specified for a state-mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. States the action, the resource, and points to the complementary restoration tool. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with a self-documenting schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it doesn't clarify overwrite semantics for duplicate names, whether snapshots are volatile or persisted, or any potential failure modes. Given the mutation nature and lack of annotations/output schema, a bit more behavioral context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% — the only parameter 'name' is documented in the schema with its default 'snapshot_N.' The description adds context by explaining the name identifies a restorable snapshot. With full schema coverage and a single self-explanatory optional parameter, the baseline holds; marginal extra meaning is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a clear verb+resource: 'Save the current layout state as a named snapshot.' It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the complementary imgui_load_snapshot, but doesn't compare against the closely related imgui_list_snapshots/delete_snapshot. Clear and functional purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes snapshots 'can be restored later with imgui_load_snapshot,' conveying a save/restore workflow. However, it doesn't state when to use this vs delete_snapshot or list_snapshots, nor does it mention any constraints (e.g., naming rules, limit on snapshots, whether this persists across sessions). Adequate but not thorough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states this sets the background clear color but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether the change persists across frames, whether it requires a subsequent draw call, or whether it affects all subsequent renders). For a state-mutation tool, modest additional behavioral context would be valuable, though 'clear color' does imply render-relevant state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single clean sentence that states the action and the target resource with zero waste. No filler, no redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter color-setting tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely adequate. However, it doesn't address whether the color change takes immediate effect, whether it persists, or how it interacts with the imgui_draw flow. For such a simple tool this is a reasonable but not exhaustive description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the color parameter is fully documented with [r,g,b] range 0.0-1.0), which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the color is applied to the background clear color of the viewport, giving the parameter real-world context beyond the schema's raw RGB specification. However, it doesn't add detail beyond what the schema's parameter description conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set the background clear color of the viewport' uses a specific verb+resource (set + background clear color of viewport), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from most siblings which handle widgets, windows, screenshots, or input, though it could be slightly confused with imgui_set_style/push_style_color which affect colors too.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you want to change the viewport's background clear color) but provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives. Given siblings like imgui_set_style, imgui_set_theme_color, and imgui_push_style_color also touch colors, some exclusionary guidance would help disambiguate background clear color from style/theme colors.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the 'remove all' behavior when both filters are omitted, which is a critical safety-relevant behavior. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is destructive/irreversible, what happens if no matching bindings exist, or error behavior on partial matches.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose and packs the filtering logic concisely. It could arguably be split into two sentences for readability but is well within acceptable length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-param, 0-required filter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core usage. However, it doesn't confirm the delete is from the ImGui canvas, doesn't explain what 'bindings' refers to (presumably established via imgui_bind), and gives no post-condition information about what remains after removal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters as optional. The description adds 'Filter by source_widget and/or target_id, or omit both to remove all,' which adds filtering semantics and the combined-omission behavior. This does add value but the parameters are self-explanatory given their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Remove bindings') and resource (bindings), and distinguishes filtering options. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'imgui_bind' tool, but the inverse relationship is implicit in the name and the action is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives context on how to use the tool: filter by source_widget and/or target_id, or omit both to remove all. This provides clear direction on invocation options, though it doesn't explicitly state when bindings exist or reference the binding creation counterpart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but this is a low-risk operation. The description lists aesthetic results per theme (gold/amber, cyan/teal, green terminal, white thin borders) which gives behavioral insight into what each choice applies. However, it doesn't disclose whether changes are cumulative, reversible, or persist across sessions, or whether applying a theme overrides prior manual style tweaks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence efficiently conveying the purpose and the 7 available options in a parenthetical list. It's compact and front-loaded with the core action first. Slightly verbose due to spelling out each theme's aesthetic, but this added detail earns its place by helping users understand theme differences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 1 enum parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. The aesthetic hints per theme provide enough information to select correctly. Not much more is needed for a simple preset-applying tool, though reversible/persistence behavior could add value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already defines the enum with 100% coverage, listing all valid theme names. The description adds value by describing what each theme looks like aesthetically (gold/amber accents, cyan/teal accents, etc.), which goes beyond parameter names. But since schema coverage is 100% and there's only 1 parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Apply a theme preset to the ImGui interface' with a specific verb (apply) and resource (theme preset/ImGui interface). It distinguishes itself from siblings like imgui_set_style (individual style config), imgui_push_style_color, and imgui_set_theme_color by operating at the preset level, and enumerates the 7 available theme options with descriptive accents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like imgui_set_style, imgui_push_style_color, or imgui_set_theme_color. However, the listing of 'available themes' implies this is the coarse-grained preset option versus finer-grained styling. No explicit exclusions or guidance for choosing between the theme tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose that this removes all animations (a destructive/bulk action with no undo), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention side effects on ongoing UI state or whether this affects animation-linked callbacks/timers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that fully conveys action, scope, and effect with zero waste. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It conveys the destructive bulk nature clearly. However, given the irreversibility (removes animations permanently), some note about confirmation or behavioral impact would strengthen completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The word 'all' in the description adds semantic meaning going beyond the schema. With 0 parameters, the schema provides no information, so the description's scoping clarification ('across all windows') is the only meaningful parameter-level semantics available. Baseline 4 applies for 0-param tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('stop and remove') and resource ('all active animations across all windows'), distinguishing it from sibling imgui_stop_animation which stops a single animation. It's specific about scope and action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a bulk operation ('all active animations'), which contrasts with sibling imgui_stop_animation (single animation), but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives. No explicit when/what-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the destructive nature ('unload', 'free its GPU resources'), which is useful. However, it doesn't specify what happens on invalid IDs, whether errors are raised or silently ignored, or any associated state changes beyond GPU resource freeing. For a resource-management tool, some error/edge-case disclosure would be valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tight sentence that states both the operation and its effect. Zero wasted words. No redundancy with the schema or annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one parameter, fully documented schema, and no output schema required. The description covers the core purpose adequately. However, given it's a destructive operation with no annotations, some additional guidance on behavior with invalid/duplicate IDs or whether the id is reusable could improve completeness. Still, for the tool's simplicity, it is near-minimally-viable but not fully complete on edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' already has a schema description ('Texture identifier to unload') with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the load. The tool description references 'a previously loaded texture' which implies the id must correspond to a loaded texture, adding slight value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema fully documents the parameter and description adds minimal extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Unload a previously loaded texture') and clearly states the action of freeing GPU resources. It naturally pairs with the sibling imgui_load_texture in the sibling list, making the purpose distinguishable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be called after a texture has been loaded via imgui_load_texture (the sibling tool), establishing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., texture must exist), or what happens when unloading an already-unloaded or nonexistent texture.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains what the output contains (version info, window properties, widget definitions) which is reasonable but doesn't disclose side effects (if any), whether this is read-only or mutates state, or any formatting/pretty-print behavior. It does disclose the path behavior (optional file write vs inline return) which is useful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, dense sentence that covers the tool's purpose and output content with zero waste. Every element contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single optional parameter, no output schema needed (output shape is well-described in prose), and no annotations required, this description is largely complete. The only minor gap is not mentioning the relationship to imgui_import_json for round-tripping workflows, but this isn't essential for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'path' is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the path behavior by mentioning inline return when omitted, which adds a small amount of value beyond the schema, but largely the schema already handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this tool exports the current UI layout as structured JSON, listing the specific contents (version info, window properties, widget definitions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like imgui_export_cpp and imgui_export_lua which export to different formats, and from imgui_get_layout which is a related but distinct operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for exporting layout data as JSON, which differentiates it from export_cpp/export_lua siblings, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it mention the reciprocal tool imgui_import_json for round-tripping or when inline vs file export is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that events are consumed/destroyed on read ('Events are consumed on read'), which is critical behavioral context for an event-draining tool. This is a meaningful safety disclosure that an agent needs to know before calling. It could add more (e.g., ordering guarantees, whether unreported event types are dropped), but the consumption disclosure is the key behavioral trait.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, zero wasted words. The description front-loads the action, enumerates event types, states payloads, and appends the critical consumption caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately simple (1 optional param, no output schema), and the description covers what events are returned and the destructive-read behavior. Without an output schema, it could clarify whether the result is a list or a map keyed by region, and it doesn't explain how events relate to hit regions. However, for a straightforward event-drain tool, the coverage is largely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter (max_events) is already fully documented in the schema as 'Maximum events to return (default 100)'. The description does not add parameter detail beyond the schema, but since the schema fully covers it, the baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional semantics needed for a single self-explanatory parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('Drain', 'Returns') with a clear resource ('canvas interaction events from hit regions'). It explicitly enumerates the event types (hover, click, drag, wheel, double-click) and payloads (positions, deltas), which distinguishes it from the sibling imgui_drain_events by focusing specifically on canvas/hit-region interaction events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states 'Drain' and 'Events are consumed on read,' which clearly implies a destructive-read pattern, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling imgui_drain_events, nor when to use this versus alternative event-access approaches. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior (undoes destructive changes) and mentions the redo stack push, which is useful. However, it doesn't state whether undo is persistent across sessions, whether there's a history depth limit, or what happens if there's nothing to undo — gaps that would matter for an agent managing UI state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core purpose and enumerates scope; the second discloses the side effect (redo stack push). There is no wasted text. Slightly more detail could be added but the structure is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and a clear side effect, the description is reasonably complete. It names the affected resources (destructive operations) and the redo stack behavior. It could benefit from clarifying edge cases (empty undo stack) but given the simplicity of the tool, this is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so there are no parameter semantics to document. With 0 params, the baseline is 4 per the rubric, and the description adds contextual meaning about what gets undone. This is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb+resource: 'Undo the last destructive operation' with explicit enumeration of what counts as destructive (add/remove/update widget, remove window, clear all). It distinguishes from the sibling imgui_redo by noting the undone state is pushed to the redo stack. It's clear without ambiguity though it doesn't explicitly contrast with redo beyond implication.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by defining what 'destructive operations' are, giving the agent clear conditions for when this tool applies. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the parenthetical list of destructive operations serves as clear applicability guidance. The redo stack mention implies imgui_redo is the complementary alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the primary behavior (generates code recreating all windows/widgets with current values), but doesn't mention side effects (if any), whether the export is read-only, or what 'current values' means precisely (e.g., widget positions, sizes, states). 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-formed sentence that packs the verb, resource, format, and content scope without wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with just one optional parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema requirement, the description covers the essential information. It's complete enough for an agent to understand what code will be generated and how to control output location. Minor gap: no explanation of how the generated Lua would be used or consumed afterward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the path parameter is fully documented ('Optional file path to write the Lua code to. If omitted, code is returned inline.'), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the two output modes (file write vs inline return), which slightly exceeds baseline value by clarifying the behavioral difference between parameter values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (export), resource (current UI layout), output format (Lua ImGui bindings code), and scope ('recreates all windows and widgets with their current values'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like imgui_export_cpp and imgui_export_json by specifying the Lua binding format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool produces but does not explicitly state when to use it over export_cpp or export_json alternatives. It implies usage (exporting a Lua recreation of the UI) but doesn't provide when/when-not guidance or mention the optional path parameter's role in choosing inline vs file output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. As a list/read operations, it implies non-destructive behavior, but the description doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read-only operation or describe the exact return format. It does state what information is returned (names, frame numbers, widget counts), which adds some transparency, but doesn't disclose ordering, snapshot limit behavior, or interaction with load/save/delete siblings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the purpose and the data content of the listing. This is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list operation, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. No output schema exists, so the description noting it returns names, frame numbers, and widget counts helps offset the lack of output schema. The snapshot management family (list/load/save/delete) is clear from the name and sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage (coverage is vacuous with no params). Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description correctly indicates this is a no-input listing operation, requiring no parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') plus a resource ('all saved snapshots') and specifies the data returned (names, frame numbers, widget counts). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like imgui_save_snapshot, imgui_load_snapshot, and imgui_delete_snapshot by making it a pure enumeration operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives. It's clear the tool is for enumeration ('List all saved snapshots'), and from context signals one can infer it complements the snapshot lifecycle tools, but there is no explicit exclusion guidance such as 'use before loading a snapshot' or distinction from other listing tools like imgui_list_scenes or imgui_list_fonts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: supported formats (BMP/PPM) and the fallback behavior of creating a 64x64 checkerboard placeholder when the file is missing or unsupported. This is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond what the schema conveys, though it doesn't mention error handling details or whether existing textures with the same id get replaced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a single important edge-case behavior. Every element earns its place and the description is appropriately scoped.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter load tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the essential behaviors: supported formats, fallback behavior, and identifier semantics. The checkerboard fallback is a particularly useful detail. It's reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id as unique identifier, path as BMP/PPM path). The description reinforces the path format constraint but adds essentially no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Load a texture from a BMP or PPM file.' It clearly states the tool's scope (only BMP/PPM formats) and pairs naturally with the sibling imgui_unload_texture, distinguishing its purpose from other texture/load operations. The file-format limitation adds specificity beyond a generic 'load texture'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool accepts (BMP or PPM) and covers a key edge case (missing/unsupported files). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from load_font or other load-like siblings, nor does it state when to use this vs. alternatives or mention any prerequisites like file path requirements. The usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (simulates press AND release, i.e., no hold state) which is useful. However, it doesn't describe edge behaviors like what happens with unknown keys, whether the key is sent to the focused widget, or any timing/wait implications. Decent but not comprehensive for a no-annotation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that capture the essence: what it does, what it supports, and concrete examples. Zero filler or redundant phrasing. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and essential behavioral disclosure (press+release semantics). Given the low complexity (1 param, no output schema needed), the description adequately covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Could mention modifier support validation or intput targeting, but for a simple key-press tool, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% - the sole parameter 'key' is described as 'Key name or combo (e.g. 'Enter', 'Tab', 'Ctrl+S')'. The description reinforces this by listing examples like 'Enter', 'Ctrl+Shift+Z'. Since coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds validation context (supported formats) beyond the schema but largely overlaps with it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a clear verb ('Simulate') with a specific resource ('a key press and release'). It lists supported inputs including single keys and modifier combos with concrete examples ('Ctrl+S', 'Shift+A'). It's clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like imgui_type_text (text input) and imgui_click_widget (mouse clicking).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides concrete usage examples (single keys and combos) which implicitly teach when to use the tool, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. However, with siblings like imgui_type_text and imgui_click_widget, the distinction is fairly self-evident from the tool purpose. Minor gap: no guidance on focusing widgets before key presses or distinguishing from text input for characters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![imgui-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SaloQT/imgui-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SaloQT/imgui-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![imgui-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SaloQT/imgui-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/SaloQT/imgui-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SaloQT/imgui-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server