figcraft_ensure_gui

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 the important behavioral facts: an interactive window is launched/confirmed on the user's monitor and the control channel is on port 9099. It does not say whether the call is idempotent when the GUI is already running, what side effects occur, or what the caller gets back.

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?

A single sentence with the action, the target state, and the port front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing is 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 zero-parameter, side-effecting GUI launch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to explain idempotency, failure modes, and what the caller can rely on afterwards. It conveys the core action and port but leaves those gaps, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of port 9099 is useful context even though it is not an input.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: ensure the FigCraft GUI is actively running with an interactive window on the user's monitor, plus the control port (9099). That is much more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like figcraft_create_and_open or ensure_gui.

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?

"Pastikan ... berjalan aktif" implies this is the tool to call when the GUI may not be up, which gives an implied trigger condition. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools such as figcraft_create_and_open for opening a document.

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