resize_window

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important behavioral detail that the operation targets the currently focused window and applies a relative delta, but says nothing about size clamping, minimum dimensions, or failure modes (e.g., no focused window).

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 window mutation with annotations covering safety, the description plus schema is close to sufficient. Minor gap: it doesn't note that a focused window must exist or what happens on extremes.

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 100% and already explains that width/height are pixel changes with negatives shrinking. The description reinforces the delta semantics with 'by a pixel delta', but adds no format, unit, or range detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (resize) and resource (the focused window) plus the mode of operation (pixel delta), which is far more precise than the name alone. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like move_window or toggle_fullscreen, 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?

Usage is implied by 'focused window' – the agent infers a window must be focused first – but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as move_window for position changes or toggle_fullscreen for size toggling.

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