Send Live Gui Session Command

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

No annotations-based context is added: the schema already carries readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description adds nothing about what actually happens on invocation, whether a session must already be open, or what the caller gets back. There is mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, since a tool that merely "reports unsupported" sounds like it mutates nothing, but this is ambiguity rather than a direct contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than genuine conciseness – the sentence is short because it omits required information, not because it is efficient.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations that claim mutation potential, the description is far too thin. It never explains the return behavior, the session prerequisites, or that the tool is a deliberate stub that should route the agent elsewhere, so an agent cannot confidently decide whether to call it at all.

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 only 33% (only workspace_root is documented in the schema), so the description is expected to compensate for command and schematic_path. It instead mentions no parameters at all, leaving required inputs like "command" completely unexplained – especially odd for a tool that is claimed not to accept commands.

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?

"Report that GUI commands are unsupported" does not state a verb+resource capability in the way the name suggests; it documents a limitation rather than an action. An agent reading the name expects to dispatch a command into a live GUI session, and the description only tells it the opposite, without saying whether the call errors, returns a status string, or silently no-ops.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word "unsupported" implies the tool is a dead end, but the description does not say that callers should avoid it, nor does it point to the real siblings that would help (describe_live_gui_support, open_schematic_in_gui, describe_server_capabilities).

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