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

The description includes valuable behavioral context regarding the nature of the change ('changes window layout without modifying application files'), which is helpful for safety and user expectations, especially since the annotations only specify it is not destructive. It also details the complex 'backend' parameter logic, which provides specific behavioral constraints on how the action is performed.

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 well-structured, leading with the core function before adding critical warnings/technical details. It is concise but robust.

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?

Given the 100% parameter description coverage and the functional intent, the description is quite complete. It clarifies that the operation is non-file-modifying, which is important for user trust.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description adds semantic value by describing the required 'device' context and explaining the nuanced choices available for the 'backend' parameter (auto, x11, portal).

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 clearly states the action (maximize) and the target (an identified application window on the paired desktop). It distinguishes this operation from file modification operations by specifying it changes 'window layout without modifying application files.'

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?

It provides a necessary pre-requisite/caution: 'Confirm the target window first,' which is crucial when dealing with window management. It does not explicitly mention alternatives for 'move' or 'resize' operations, but its singular focus on maximization is clear.

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