show_ui

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 explains the difference between read_only and read_write modes, including the write-token implication and the prerequisite for read_write. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'show window' statement.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds necessary information about either state, mode, or command_line, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

All three parameters are meaningfully explained, the behavioral tradeoffs between modes are stated, and the purpose is clear. There is no output schema, but for a UI visibility tool the description provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 input schema provides only parameter titles and defaults, with no descriptions. The tool description fully compensates by explaining the state values, the semantics of mode, and the optional command_line behavior. This is strong parameter-level documentation.

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: making the Control Expert window visible for human observation or takeover. It is clearly distinguishable from all sibling tools, which focus on project analysis, editing, and simulation tasks.

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 usage context, explaining that read_only mode is the default and required for opening editors, while read_write mode hands control to the GUI and only works when the client does not hold write access. This is actionable guidance for selecting the right mode.

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