get_foreground_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get' without specifying the return format (e.g., window ID, title), side effects (none implied but not explicit), or platform-specific behavior. For a tool with zero annotations and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 zero fluff. For a tool with no parameters, this is appropriately sized. It immediately conveys the core purpose without unnecessary complexity.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description must provide enough context for an agent to call and interpret the result. It fails to explain what the 'foreground window' represents, what data is returned (e.g., handle, title, bounds), or how to use the output. The description is adequate only for knowing the tool's existence, not for reliable invocation.

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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none, and the schema already covers 100% of the (empty) parameter set. No additional semantic information 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 description clearly states the action ('get') and the specific resource ('current foreground window'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_windows (which likely enumerates all windows) and focus_window (which sets focus). An agent can immediately understand the tool's role.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for the active window as opposed to listing all windows, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or complementary usage with focus_window or capture_screen. An agent is left to infer usage context.

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