tool_find_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. It discloses the tool is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait, and states the return content (hwnd and geometry). However, it does not mention behavior when no match is found, case sensitivity, or whether multiple matches are possible. This is minimal but not absent.

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 that states purpose and read-only nature efficiently. It could include a bit more detail without losing conciseness, but it is appropriately brief and wastes no 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?

Given an output schema exists, return values are covered. The tool is simple with one parameter. Missing details include behavior on no match, multiple matches, and case sensitivity, which could affect an agent's interpretation. The description is adequate but not fully complete for all potential edge cases.

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%, so the description must explain the parameter. It states the 'title' is used for substring matching, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type and default. It does not clarify edge cases like empty string behavior, but the core semantic is conveyed.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('window'), and the distinguishing mechanism ('by title substring'), and specifies the returned data ('hwnd and geometry'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tool_list_windows and tool_get_window_rect, which have different purposes.

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 implies a clear use case: given a title substring, find a window. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., when listing all windows or retrieving geometry of an already known window). The usage guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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