set_list_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: no value read-back, the representation (not the value) changes, and verification should be done with capture_screenshot. It also outlines the command-family mechanism. Missing only failure/permission behavior.

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, but the body is dense with low-level internals (UTF-16LE Button-leaf encoding, hex command families) that crowd out agent-facing guidance. Much of it is context an agent may not need to select or invoke the tool.

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 high-complexity COM/1C automation tool, the description covers purpose, mechanics, and verification path, and names the return fields. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is redundant but harmless. It is nearly complete for correct invocation.

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 0% across 5 params, so the description must compensate. It explains mode well (Список/Дерево/Иерархический plus list/tree/hierarchical aliases) and gives some meaning to capture and dynlist, but leaves host and port unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Switch a dynamic list's VIEW MODE / grouping natively.' The scope (the «Режим просмотра» toggle) is clear. It lacks clean sibling differentiation, instead leaning on implementation references (click_command) rather than routing to alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose and the note that it re-targets a captured click. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no route to alternatives, though it hints at its relationship to click_command and row ops.

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