editor_show_in_filesystem

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the dock is opened or focused), error handling for missing paths, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 sentence with no filler, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It loses one point because it is so terse that it omits potentially useful context, though it is still appropriately sized for a simple 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks any mention of preconditions (e.g., must the dock be visible?), error behavior, or whether folders can be revealed. This creates some gaps in completeness.

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 schema already defines the single parameter 'path' with a description 'Path to reveal', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline score.

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 'Reveal' and names the exact resource ('a file in the FileSystem dock'), making it clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from sibling tools like editor_open_asset or editor_list_filesystem.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. However, the action is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for highlighting a file in the filesystem, so usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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