imgui_set_widget_visibility

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.