imgui_window_control

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.