imgui_set_viewport_size

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.