client_openChatWindowAt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description only says it opens the chat window to the message position; it does not disclose whether this is a safe read-only operation, what happens if the message is not found, whether the chat window must already be open, or any side effects like scrolling. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it is almost too terse and could benefit from a bit more context. Still, every word earn its place.

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 simple UI-navigation tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the lack of annotations, more context about prerequisites (e.g., active session) and behavior (e.g., whether the chat window is opened if closed) would improve completeness. It is not severely inadequate but has clear gaps.

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 100% with meaningful descriptions for both parameters (e.g., messageId is 'ID of the message to scroll to (serialized)'). The tool description itself adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') and resource ('chat window') with a precise scope ('to the position of the message'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool client_openChatWindow which likely opens without positioning. This is a clear statement of what the tool does.

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 when you need to navigate to a specific message by mentioning 'position of the message', but it does not explicitly state when to use this over client_openChatWindow or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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