Window

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine context by clarifying that a hidden window does not interrupt the pipe. The Windows-only scope is likewise not derivable from annotations or schema. It does not say what happens if there is no GUI session or what 'show' does to focus/stacking, which are the remaining unknowns.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action and its platform scope front-loaded and the behavioral reassurance second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-boolean tool the description is nearly sufficient, missing only edge-case behavior (non-Windows or headless invocation) and the explicit boolean polarity.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required boolean 'show', so the schema documents nothing. The phrase 'show or hide' hints at the true/false mapping but never states it explicitly (true = show, false = hide) or whether showing also raises/focuses the window.

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 concrete verb pair and resource ('Show or hide the Audacity window') plus a platform constraint ('on Windows'), so an agent knows exactly what this toggles. It stops short of naming any sibling (e.g. audacity_launch) as the alternative for starting Audacity, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 second sentence implies a use case for hiding — the process keeps running through the pipe — which suggests this is for backgrounding rather than stopping work. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no exclusion, and no pointer to launch/close alternatives among the many siblings.

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