code_show_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reveal two real traits: the call is asynchronous ('wait for its content to appear') and toggling an already-selected view collapses the sidebar, which surfaces as an honest failure. It does not cover permissions or return format, but for a UI-selection action it discloses meaningful behavior beyond the signature.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the caveat. 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema UI action, the description covers what happens and the one non-obvious failure mode (collapsing the sidebar). The absence of any return-value description is acceptable given there is no output schema, though a hint about what success reports would round it out.

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. Nothing in the description or schema needs parameter explanation.

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 Search view in the VS Code activity bar.' The named view implicitly distinguishes it from the parallel siblings code_show_explorer and code_show_source_control, but no sibling is ever named explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 by the verb 'Select.' There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this instead of the siblings, and notably no routing to code_search_workspace, which is the obvious alternative for actually searching content. The collapse caveat is behavioral, not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.