windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the returned data is meant for coordinate validation and topmost checks, which is useful framing, but with no output schema it says nothing about the shape of the returned layout data.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource retrieved. It is appropriately sized for a trivial no-argument read tool, though the trailing purpose clause is slightly compressed.

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, read-only, idempotent tool the description is nearly sufficient, and annotations carry most of the behavioral load. The remaining gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what the layout/coordinate data looks like, so the agent cannot anticipate the return shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. Nothing in the schema needs compensating for.

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?

Description states a specific verb-plus-resource: 获取 (get) MiniMax 窗口坐标与布局信息 (window coordinates and layout info). That is clearly distinct from siblings like minimax_screenshot, minimax_click, or minimax_find_text, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

It gives implied usage context — 用于坐标校验与置顶检查 (for coordinate validation and topmost/pin checks) — which tells the agent the scenario. But it offers no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to siblings such as minimax_screenshot or minimax_find_text, which also surface positional context.

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