imgui_set_dpi_scale

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.