show_window

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: bringing a window to foreground for human interaction. Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description complements but does not significantly extend transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then usage context, then parameter and return details. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 description covers the main use case and return format, but it omits details about the 'confirm_focus_disruption' parameter and potential error conditions. The existence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return value details.

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 schema itself provides detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description's summary ('the window by hwnd or title') adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Make a hidden/minimized window visible and bring it to the foreground.' It also provides a specific use case (interactive LOGIN) and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'hide_window'.

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 explains when to use the tool (for human-interaction steps like LOGIN) and references the sibling 'hide_window' for after use. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare with other window tools.

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