show_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly states the mutation affects the viewport and, by default, renders, and the phrasing reveals how the render parameter changes behavior. It omits idempotency/error behavior, but for a simple visibility toggle this is acceptable.

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?

One sentence contains the action, target, and scoping nuance with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema visibility command, the description plus input schema gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly, including how to limit the effect to the viewport. It would be marginally improved by noting behavior when the object is already visible, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying the render parameter's default behavior ('by default in renders'). The name parameter is self-evident from its title and the tool's object-oriented phrasing, so no extra explanation is needed.

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 verb 'Unhide' plus resource 'object' and scope 'viewport and renders' make the action unmistakable. It also contrasts with the sibling hide_object, so an agent can pick the inverse 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 description implies the obvious use case—turning on visibility for a hidden object—but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over hide_object or what conditions should hold. No alternative tools are named.

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