eda_dmt_editor_control_activate_split_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool activates a split screen and returns a boolean success indicator, and remarks that it sets input focus. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether it changes the active window, whether it fails if the splitScreenId is invalid, or whether it affects other split screens). The return type is stated in the signature, but behavioral details are thin.

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 compact: a signature line, a short Chinese summary, and two brief remarks. It front-loads the essential information. The mixed-language content (English signature with Chinese remarks) is a minor structural issue but doesn't waste words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain how to obtain a splitScreenId (e.g., via get_split_screen_tree or get_split_screen_id_by_tab_id), what happens if the ID is invalid, or how the boolean return should be interpreted beyond 'success'. The sibling tools suggest a rich split-screen management context, and this description doesn't position the tool within it.

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% for the two parameters (args array and windowId), but the description itself only mentions splitScreenId in the signature. The description adds the meaning of the primary parameter (splitScreenId) and the return type, but doesn't explain the args array format or the windowId parameter beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameters.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'dmt_EditorControl.activateSplitScreen(splitScreenId: string) -> Promise<boolean>' and includes a Chinese summary '激活分屏' (activate split screen). It clearly identifies the action and target. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_split_screen or move_document_to_split_screen, though the name itself is fairly self-explanatory.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., a split screen must already exist), when it's appropriate to call, or when to prefer create_split_screen or other split-screen management tools. The 'remarks: 使输入焦点' (make input focus) hints at the effect but doesn't provide usage context.

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