show_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the core behavior: opening a file, highlighting specific lines, and suppressing explanation bubbles. It also discloses the coordinate conventions. It doesn't mention edge cases like missing files or return behavior, but for a read-only editor-open action the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core behavior appears in the first sentence, followed by usage rules, explicit don'ts, and coordinate semantics. Every sentence earns its place and none are redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools that could be confused with it, the description is complete. It explains when to use it, when not to use it, what behavior to expect, and how to interpret the coordinate parameters. There is no significant missing information an agent would need to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by specifying that line numbers are 1-based and character offsets are 0-based. This clarifies the relationship between start/end lines and start/end chars, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 and resource: 'Open a file in VS Code and highlight specific lines.' It clearly differentiates itself from the walkthrough sibling by noting it performs the action 'without any explanation bubble.' An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user asks to show, open, jump to, or point at specific code with no commentary needed.' It also provides clear exclusions: use walkthrough for explanations and multi-step tours. This leaves no ambiguity about selecting this tool versus siblings.

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