Minimize app window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'minimize' without mentioning side effects, error handling, or the multiple-window behavior (which is only in the pid schema description). The agent is left unaware of what happens when no window is found or when multiple windows exist.

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 concise sentence that directly states the action. While it is minimal, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but it does not waste 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?

For a simple action, the description is minimally adequate. The schema fills in parameter details, but the description lacks usage context (e.g., when to use over close_app, behavior with multiple windows) and does not mention any return values or error conditions. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a richer description would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the input schema sufficiently documents both parameters (app and pid) including guidance for the pid parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('minimize') and resource ('an app's window'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from siblings like focus_app and maximize_app by the action, and from minimize_folder_window by the resource type. However, it does not explicitly call out that it targets app windows as opposed to folder windows, though the name implies it.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as close_app, focus_app, or maximize_app. The only usage instruction ('Omit it first...') appears in the pid parameter schema, not in the description, and concerns parameter selection rather than tool selection. An agent must infer the appropriate context.

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