open_dialog_window

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the window tails a live log, stays open until closed (no auto-exit), and has a specific title. It could mention if any permissions are needed or if closing is the only way to stop it, but overall it's 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?

The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, what the log shows, and duration of the window.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what data it shows, and how it behaves. Minor missing details (e.g., how to close) are implied by 'until you close 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline of 4 applies as no additional explanation is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open a Terminal window') and resource ('tails the live cross-session signal log'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'broadcast' or 'whisper' which send signals rather than monitor them.

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 implies usage for monitoring dialog by describing what the log contains, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions.

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