hide_window

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

Annotations already convey mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a concrete return format ('{"ok": true, "hwnd": N, "visible": false}') which is not covered by annotations, helping the agent verify success. It also clarifies the action is a re-hide of a previously shown 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?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose sentence followed by an args summary and return format. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition.

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 tool with a nested params object and multiple optional properties, the description provides sufficient context: it states the core action, gives a typical use case, and describes the return format. The rich schema covers parameter details, and annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning the Linux-only display parameter, but that is handled by the schema.

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 description summarizes parameters as 'window by hwnd or title, and a minimize flag', which maps to most schema properties. However, the schema itself already provides detailed descriptions for all properties, including the 'display' parameter not mentioned in the tool description. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool hides a window, using the specific verb 'hide' and resource 'window'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like show_window by specifying 'again after it was shown', and provides a concrete use case ('once login is complete').

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (after a window has been shown, e.g., after login) and implies it is the counterpart to show_window. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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