Selects the Explorer view in the VS Code activity bar and waits for its content. If already active, it reports failure instead of collapsing the sidebar.
Select the Explorer view in the VS Code activity bar and wait for its content to appear. Pressing the already-selected view collapses the side bar instead; that reports honestly as a failure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses that the call waits for content to appear and that re-selecting an already-active view collapses the sidebar and reports as a failure. That is a genuinely non-obvious edge case an agent would otherwise get wrong. It omits auth/permission expectations, but for a local UI-automation toggle the disclosure is solid.
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, zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the failure edge case. Every clause earns its place.
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 parameterless UI toggle with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, the wait behavior, and the key failure mode. Nothing critical is missing, though an explicit pointer to sibling view tools would make routing airtight.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description needs to compensate for.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Select the Explorer view in the VS Code activity bar.' This is clear and immediately actionable. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from view-switching siblings like code_show_search or code_show_source_control, so the agent must infer the difference from the view name alone.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this opens the Explorer view. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer it over code_show_search or code_show_source_control, and no prerequisites. The collapse-on-reselect note is behavioral, not routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.