show_viewer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious trait: keyboard input in the viewer window also drives the console. However, it does not state whether the viewer blocks, requires a running app, how it interacts with other tools, or what happens if already open, leaving notable gaps.

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 wasted words. It immediately states the action and then adds one important behavioral note in parentheses.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and a key interaction detail, though it could say more about lifecycle or side effects, such as whether the viewer must be closed or how it affects other sessions.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the scoring rules, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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 and resource: 'Open the live video window for a human.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like snapshot or record_start, which capture or record rather than open a live viewer. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool is used to view live video, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the right tool when a human needs to see the device screen.

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