eda_sys_iframe_hide_iframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states result-oriented behavior: returns false if the target is not found, true if already hidden, and throws Error in standalone script environments. This is valuable context that an agent needs to interpret the boolean return and anticipate failure modes. It does not describe visual side effects, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 well-structured: it leads with the API signature, then a concise purpose statement, followed by bullet-pointed behavioral remarks and a usage note. It is not overly verbose and the important information (return semantics, extension-only limitation) is presented clearly. Some redundancy exists between the signature and the Chinese summary, but overall 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?

Given the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: return value meaning, edge cases (not found, already hidden), and environment restrictions. It does not explain what 'hide' visually entails or whether the action is reversible, but these are less critical for correct invocation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 both parameters (args and windowId), so the baseline is 3. The description's signature line (id?: string) aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. The schema's explanation of windowId (target EDA window ID; omit for active window) is adequate, and the description does not compensate with extra meaning.

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 action (hide) and resource (inline frame window) via '隐藏内联框架窗口'. It is specific, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like close_iframe or show_iframe; the distinction relies on the tool name and the verb in the description. Purpose is unambiguous, but sibling differentiation is implicit.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_sys_iframe_close_iframe or eda_sys_iframe_show_iframe. The note about extension-only validity is a constraint, but it does not help an agent choose between hide, show, or close. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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