set_surfer_visible

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful side effect: the application launches automatically if it is not running, so a 'show' call can start a process. It does not say whether hiding keeps the app running in the background, whether hiding may lose unsaved work, or how long a cold start takes. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is stated first with the auto-start caveat immediately after. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 single-boolean tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and the main surprising behavior (auto-launch). The only gap is whether hiding leaves the process running or affects document state, which is a reasonable but minor omission for this complexity level.

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% for the single 'visible' boolean, whose title and default are the only structured hints. The phrase 'Show or hide' maps true/false onto the parameter meaningfully, but it does not state what the default's effect is if omitted or whether null/false differs from simply not calling the tool. Since there is only one trivial boolean parameter, the schema alone is nearly sufficient, so a middle score is warranted.

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 gives a specific verb pair and resource: 'Show or hide the Surfer application window.' This clearly separates it from siblings like surfer_status, list_documents, and the create_* map tools, which all operate on documents rather than application visibility. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it overlaps with, but no sibling actually overlaps.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers this is the tool for controlling window visibility versus checking state. There is no explicit 'use this when X, not Y' routing, and no mention of whether surfer_status should be consulted first. The clause 'Surfer starts automatically if needed' hints the tool is safe to call in any state, which is useful but not framed as guidance.

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