unhide_all

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the global scope of the operation, but says nothing about reversibility, side effects, or why the tool is flagged destructive. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 minimal and front-loaded, with the verb and scope in the first clause. The bilingual repetition is justified and there is no filler or redundant detail.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficient to convey the operation and its global scope. The only gap is that it does not elaborate on why the tool is flagged destructive, but the annotation already signals that.

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 a baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The schema is fully covered trivially, and the description need not document any arguments.

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 specific verb ('Show') and a precisely scoped resource ('every hidden object in the scene'), which distinguishes it clearly from the sibling unhide_objects that implies selective unhiding. Even though bilingual, both languages convey the same clear global operation.

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 global scope is implied by 'every' and 'scene,' so an agent can infer that this is for unhiding all hidden objects rather than a subset. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative like unhide_objects is mentioned.

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