hypr

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'instant, no vision' and lists actions with parameter hints, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or permissions. Could be more comprehensive.

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?

Very concise: one sentence plus a list. All information is relevant and no waste. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 multiple actions and parameters, description covers the basics. Output schema exists (not shown) likely covering return info. Missing error scenarios and preconditions, but sufficient for a simple tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description compensates by associating each action with its expected parameters (e.g., workspace action expects workspace param). Provides format hints like number/name/special:name.

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 it performs window/workspace operations via IPC, listing specific actions like workspace, focus_window, move_window, etc. Siblings are other system tools (desktop, keyboard, etc.), so this distinguishes as a window management tool.

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 it's for instant window ops without vision, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. siblings or when to avoid. Sibling names provide context suggesting differentiation.

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