attach_java_swing

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral details: it injects an agent into the JVM and changes element finding from UIA to Java class/accessible names. This goes beyond what annotations offer, though it could mention prerequisites or potential side effects.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core action; the second provides usage timing and behavior change. Information is front-loaded 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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and behavioral change. It adequately sets expectations but could be slightly richer (e.g., error handling or prerequisite JVM).

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 schema covers the single parameter jdkPath with its description. The tool description adds: 'Overrides the jdkPath session capability,' which clarifies how it interacts with session-level configuration. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 verb 'Inject' and the resource 'Java accessibility agent into the JVM owning the current session window.' It specifies the precise condition for use (after creating a session without javaSwing), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like attach_session and create_session.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('after creating a session...when javaSwing was NOT set') and explains the behavioral consequence ('element finding will use Java class names...instead of UIA'). It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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