binds

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds the crucial behavioral facts — that these binds are the desktop owner's own config, that lua binds are opaque closures unrunnable from outside, and that synthetic keystrokes cannot reach Hyprland's bind matcher. These are non-obvious constraints an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then pivots to the workflow routing and the caveat. Slightly dense with three separate admonitions in the back half, but every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is filler.

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 zero-param list tool with an output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description closes the remaining gaps: what the entries mean, how to act on them via siblings, and the one trap (keyboard can't reach compositor binds). An agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by naming the fields the result carries (combo, action, arg, description), which helps the agent interpret what comes back rather than guessing.

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?

Identifies the resource (the user's own Hyprland keybinds) and enumerates the returned fields (combo, action, arg, description), which distinguishes it from use_bind, keyboard and the other desktop siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', but the framing and title make the read-only enumerating nature unambiguous.

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?

Explicit routing: to run a bind, call use_bind with the combo; for `lua` binds that nothing can execute externally, read the description and reimplement with `hypr` or `launch`; and it explicitly warns that `keyboard` canNOT trigger these binds. That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and named alternatives all in one.

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