eda_sys_iframe_show_iframe

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond what annotations (none) provide: result-oriented semantics (returns false if not found, true if already displayed), and the critical constraint that it only works in extension context, otherwise always throws. This is excellent transparency for a simple tool.

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 with signature, purpose, remarks, note, and returns. While it has multiple sections, each serves a purpose; it's not overly verbose and information is front-loaded with the signature.

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 explains return values and error conditions, and highlights the extension-only constraint. Given no output schema and no annotations, it covers the essential context for correct invocation. Missing details like the exact meaning of 'args' are minor since the schema covers 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds the signature `id?: string` but doesn't clarify the relationship between `id` and `windowId` or the `args` array, so no additional semantic value is provided.

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 '显示内联框架窗口' (display inline frame window) with a specific resource. The signature and return type are included. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like open_iframe or hide_iframe, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_iframe or create_iframe. It only explains the result-oriented behavior and extension-only constraint, but doesn't mention when to choose this over siblings.

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