show_workspace

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates local UI state without destroying data. The description reinforces that by framing the action as a window/view switch rather than a content change, but says nothing about whether the visible workspace persists into a saved file or what happens if no network is open.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, the two states, and example triggers with zero filler. Nothing here could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema (so return values need no description), and its safety profile is covered by annotations. The only unaddressed items are environmental prerequisites such as requiring an open network, which is a small omission for a view toggle.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% and a single required enum parameter documented in the schema, the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format, persistence, or default information beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('Packet Tracer's main window'), plus the two target states (logical/physical workspace). An agent immediately knows this is a UI view toggle, not a data operation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no sibling competes for this behavior, so the minor gap is in explicit differentiation only.

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?

It provides concrete triggering contexts ('before a screenshot or a class demo'), which is clear when-to-use guidance rather than mere restatement. It stops short of stating any when-not or prerequisites (e.g. needing an open network), so it is not fully exhaustive.

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