ghost_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: focus 'ANCHORS the window and does NOT raise it,' state operations 'never activate the window, so the user's focus stays put,' and launch 'starts on a hidden desktop, never on your screen.' These are exactly the surprising, non-obvious side effects an agent needs to know before invoking the tool.

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 one dense paragraph, but every sentence earns its place and the op= prefixes make it scannable. It is long only because it covers five operations with real behavioral nuance; still, a bullet-per-op layout would have improved readability over the wall-of-text format.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers a remarkable amount: list output fields, anchor mechanics, state-operation effects, launch destination, and a hint about target.surface. Minor gaps remain — 'the anchored verbs' and 'operator-unlocked prefer_background/foreground policy' are referenced without definition, and the non-default policy path is only partially explained.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by tying parameter effects to policy: 'name= sets the anchor, clear=true clears it, no args reports it,' 'name+state' for op=state, and the note to 'see target.surface in the response' for launch. This enriches parameter meaning rather than repeating the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Window management across the user's desktop AND Ghost's hidden desktops.' The op= enumeration then concretely details what the tool does for each operation (list, focus, anchor, state, launch). No sibling tool claims desktop/hidden-desktop window management, so it is clearly differentiated from ghost_tab_* and ghost_browser_* tools.

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 provides clear conditional context: each op states what it does under the default background policy, and it explains when restore is the path to making a minimized window actionable and when launch places an app on a hidden desktop. It never explicitly names alternatives or exclusions among siblings (e.g., when to prefer ghost_run for a visible launch), so it stops short of full when-to-use vs. when-not-to guidance.

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