find_osrs_window

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool checks running status and gets window ID but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether it brings window to foreground), permissions required, or behavior if RuneLite is not running (e.g., return null or throw error).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it lacks clarity on what is returned (e.g., window ID or null) and does not explain the behavior when RuneLite is not running. Missing this detail slightly reduces 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds meaningful context about the tool's purpose beyond the schema, explaining it checks status and retrieves an ID.

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 the tool checks if RuneLite is running and retrieves its window ID. It uses specific verbs ('Check', 'get') and a specific resource ('RuneLite window ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on game analysis or interactions.

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 usage when needing to verify RuneLite's presence and obtain its window ID, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical workflow sequences.

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