show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it says it opens tabs, panels, sidebars, and <details>, then waits for hidden outputs to render. This gives the agent a realistic model of side effects and timing. It does not mention failure modes or timeout behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 tight sentences: purpose, target semantics, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value and the key 'Use before...' instruction is placed at the end, after the mechanism, so the flow is natural and 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?

For a UI-preparation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what target accepts, what side effects occur, and when to call it. A slightly fuller account of timeout_s or postcondition behavior would make it complete, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 thoroughly explains target, including accepted value types. However, app_id and timeout_s receive no semantic explanation beyond their schema titles/default, and timeout_s behavior in particular is left to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Bring an element into view') and clarifies exactly what target means: an element id, or a tab/accordion/panel/<details> label. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like click or read_outputs by describing a preparatory action, not a click or read.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use before read_outputs or screenshot on hidden elements.' This is clear contextual guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool for the same job, so it falls just short of a 5.

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