things_show_view

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it changes only the Mac view, requires writes, and returns a dispatch receipt rather than visible results or task data. This is valuable disclosure of side effects and return semantics, consistent with idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The primary action and key caveat are front-loaded, and the warning about URL dispatch is placed immediately where it matters most.

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 gives essential behavioral caveats and works well with the schema's enum for view. However, it leaves a notable gap around how query relates to the 'search' view and how requestId should correlate with request status checks, especially given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains tags ('optionally filtering by tags') and view ('built-in Things view'), but it does not explain the query parameter's role with 'search' or why requestId is required beyond calling it a request ID. Two of four parameters remain under-specified.

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 names a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('search or a built-in Things view'), with an optional tags filter. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling things_navigate, but the 'Mac's view only' scoping clarifies that this is a view-changing operation, not a data-retrieval or mutation operation.

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 use when the agent needs to change the Mac's displayed view rather than retrieve data, especially with 'This changes the Mac's view only' and 'receipt confirms URL dispatch, not a visible result or returned task data.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like things_navigate, nor does it give exclusions.

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