zerodom_resize_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does an excellent job: it explains why the call works despite CDP limitations, warns that it can succeed without visible effect on tiling window managers, and details the Wayland protocol restriction. This far exceeds typical tool descriptions.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with important caveats following. The prose is dense and includes some implementation archaeology like CDP method names and a docs reference that go beyond what a caller strictly needs, but none of it is filler—it all helps explain edge behavior.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the non-obvious environment restrictions: headless sessions, tiling window managers, Wayland, and floating windows. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. The only real gap is the lack of parameter units and limits, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions width or height units, bounds, or how the values map to window geometry. The parameter names 'Width' and 'Height' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic detail to compensate for the empty schema.

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 leads with a specific verb and object: 'Resize the real browser window', then immediately disambiguates from the page viewport, which differentiates it from the sibling tool zerodom_set_viewport. This is exactly the kind of precision an agent needs to select the right tool.

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 gives clear when-not guidance: the call is only meaningful for an attached real-browser session and a headless session has no window. It also warns about tiling window managers and Wayland compositors. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for viewport resizing, only says 'not just the page's viewport', so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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