imgui_create_window

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.