cc_open_visible_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool opens a visible window and starts Claude Code/Codex, but does not detail side effects (e.g., effect on existing sessions), authentication needs, or whether it blocks or returns immediately. Additional context about what happens to prior sessions or how the visible window behaves would improve 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be restructured to include brief parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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 the tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly. The high-level purpose is clear, but without parameter semantics, usage guidelines, or behavioral details, the agent cannot determine appropriate values or when to use it. The description needs to cover parameter roles and any prerequisites.

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 has 5 parameters (cli, cli_args, terminal, session_id, project_path) with no descriptions (0% schema description coverage). The tool description does not explain the meaning, purpose, or acceptable values of any parameter. For an agent to invoke this tool correctly, parameter semantics are critical, and here they are entirely missing.

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 opens a visible Terminal/iTerm window and launches Claude Code/Codex for human viewing and takeover. It directly states the verb (open, start), resource (visible terminal window, Claude Code/Codex), and the purpose (方便人工观看和接管). This differentiates it from sibling tools like cc_start_session or cc_open_claude_code, which likely have different visibility or interaction modes.

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 implies the tool is for scenarios requiring human visibility and takeover, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cc_start_session or cc_open_claude_code. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided. The context is implied but not direct.

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