abba_window_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's real value is the added context: the change is view-only and not persisted in the session/script, and a session started without a window will have one created. That side effect is genuinely useful information beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about failures or invalid titles.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence and the remaining sentences are short and information-dense with no filler. The fragment "Window mode only." is terse to the point of being ambiguous, which is the main structural weakness.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by telling the agent how the result is observed (abba_window_picture) and how to obtain labels for the framed region. Six optional parameters are fully schema-documented, so nothing critical is missing, though behavior on matching no window or multiple windows is left to the schema defaults.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics beyond the schema's per-parameter strings: it explains what "review" and "positioning" actually render (atlas section of the current slice vs. current slice plus neighbours). It also clarifies that the window has no region names, which frames how region_mm should be interpreted.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (sets) and resource (what an ABBA window shows), then enumerates the four aspects it controls: mode, current slice, channels, and framed region. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling used for observation ("Then look with abba_window_picture"), so an agent can place it without reading the schema.

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 states a scope restriction ("Window mode only"), confirms it does not mutate the session or appear in fiji_module_script, and routes the agent to ABBA - Snapshot with labels when region names are needed. The when-to-use itself is only implied (change the view, then inspect with abba_window_picture) rather than stated as an explicit instruction, and "window mode" is used as unexplained jargon.

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