resize_window

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavior: it states the return value is 'JSON with the window's updated geometry, or an error if not found', disclosing the error case. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns structure is clear and wastes no space. Every sentence adds purpose, parameter context, or return 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?

For a focused tool with a rich input schema and annotations covering safety, the description adequately conveys the action and return contract. It does not explain the nuances of window selection (title vs handle) or platform-specific display behavior, but the schema fills those gaps. The output schema also removes the need to detail return fields.

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's parameter summary ('target window plus new width, height') is generic, but the input schema provides rich, per-field descriptions for title, width, handle, height, and display. Since the schema effectively covers parameter semantics, the description adds little new meaning, aligning with a baseline of 3 rather than a higher or lower score.

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 opens with 'Resize a window to a new width and height', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like move_window (position change) and get_screen_size (read-only) by focusing on resize semantics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_window or window_action. It does not state prerequisites, preferred window identification method (title vs handle), or exclusions. Context is limited to 'target window plus new width, height', which is not enough for an agent to choose correctly among many window-related tools.

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