window_bounds

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

The description adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by specifying the output format (screen pixels rectangle) and the platform constraint. It does not claim any destructive or state-changing behavior, aligning with the readOnlyHint.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: first sentence defines the output, second sentence provides usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 fully explains what the tool returns (left, top, right, bottom, width, height) and its purpose. Given no output schema and no parameters, this is complete and sufficient for an agent.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 applies per guidelines.

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 explicitly states 'Return Floorp's window rectangle in screen pixels' with specific fields (left, top, right, bottom, width, height). It also clearly differentiates from siblings by noting its use for computing coordinates for move_cursor/real_click.

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 directly states when to use: 'Use this to compute coordinates for move_cursor / real_click.' It also notes platform restriction 'Windows only', providing clear context without explicitly listing exclusions.

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