Open view / window

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: it states the return shape '{opened, window}', describes the action as bringing a window to the front, and points to go_to_view for saved view settings and capture_view to inspect the result. It does not detail permissions or no-argument behavior, but it adds meaningful context over the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then packs the supported parameter patterns, return shape, and sibling alternatives into a single efficient paragraph. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or 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?

Given 8 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the return shape and the main invocation patterns, and routes to siblings. The one notable omission is what happens when called with no arguments, which matters because all parameters are optional.

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, but the description adds significant cross-parameter meaning: it maps window types to required companions ('FloorPlan' + story, '3D' + projection, 'Section' + name, marker element, database GUID, navigator item). This helps an agent choose the correct parameter combination rather than relying on individual field descriptions alone.

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+resource: bringing a window to the front. It names the exact window types and parameter combinations, and explicitly distinguishes itself from go_to_view and capture_view. An agent can tell what it does and which sibling to use instead.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Saved views with their layer/scale settings: go_to_view' identifies when to use an alternative, and 'To look at the result use capture_view' names the follow-up tool. The description also implies the core use case for open_view itself.

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